V 






» ^ 






<v 












A U 



° " ° 












•v ^ 



k* w ^> « 









1/ •*> 






4>> « 
































































































* 












**.„■* 



^ 



^ 



OJ 












-. ^ 











. 



























^ v 















































































(OS-INTERFERENCE BY CONGRESS WITH SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. 



SPEECH 



•Wert, r-66 



SENATOR DOUGLAS, OF ILLINOIS, 



DELIVERED 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MAY 15 & 16, I860,. 



The Senate having under consideration the r< sol 

,.■•1 by Mr. Davis on the 1st of March, relative to 
the relations of the States, and the rfg is and 

property in the Territories, and I 
slave property in the Territories, whet . for so 

doing shall exist— Mr. DOUGLAS Baid: 

Mr. Prb8I©?nt: I have no taste and Very little 
respect for that species of discussion which con- 
sists in assaults on the personal or political posi 
tion of Tiny Senator, i have no desire to elevate 
\)\\ i >TI !)} attempting to pull down others, nor to 
place any Senator in a false p<i re liis 

constituency. I have no assault to make upon 
anybody; no impeachment of the record of any 
gentleman. I am willing that ea -shall 

stand before the country and his own constituen- 
cy on the record which he has made for himself. 
I do not complain of so much of the speech of the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr, Davis) a* arraigns 
my political position, for he seems to have deemed 
it necessary to draw a parallel between his opin-, 
ions and my own, as we have been actors foi' 
many years in the same scenes, involving the 
same issue that is now presented, he taking the 
one side and I the other. In self defence it may 
be necessary for me also to refer to the po 
of that Senator at various periods — with a view 
of illustrating my own position— by way of con- 
trast, as we always differed on an isolated point. 

( shall not indulge to-day in the discussion of 
any abstract theories of government, rrraoh Lags 
in the discussion of the legal questions which have 
lately been attempted to be forced on the Demo- 
cratic party as political issues. On a former oc- 
casion, when forced into a discussion by the At- 
torney General of the United States, the law offi- 
cer of the Government, I did amuse myself in the 
discussion of certain legal propositions; not be- 
cause they had anything to do with the political 
issues before the country, but because that law 
officer seemed to have no official duties to occupy 
his time, and I had the leisure to reply to him. 

The principal points to which I shall direct my 
remarks to-day, and the sole cause of my making 
any speech, will be found in certain extracts from 
the speech of the Senator from Mississippi, a few 
days since. I have put three extracts upon paper 
together, and will send them to the Secretary's 
desk, that they may beread. They ^BLconsti- 
tute the chief text to which my remarj^kvill be 
addressed. *™ 



The Secretary read the following extracts from 
Mr. Davis's speech of May 7 : 

"It is well known to those who have been associated 
with me in the two House; of Congress that, frpm the com- 
mencement of the qnesfiort, I have been the determined, 
opponent oi' what is called squatter sovereignty. I never 
wave it countenance, :i ml I ai* now least of all disposed to 
give it quarter. In 1 its appearance for goodt 

purposes. It was ushered in by a great and good man- 
lie brought it forward because of that distrust which he 
had in the capacity of tire Government to bear the rude 
shock to which it was exposed. Bis conviction, no doubt. 
to some extent sharpened and directed hi." patriotism, and 
his apprehension led him to a conclusion to which, I doubt 
not. to-. lay he adheres aa tenaciously as ever; but from 
which it was my fortune, good or ill, to dissent when his 
letter wag read to me in manuscript; I being, together 
with some other persons, asked whether or not it should 
be sent. At the first blush, I believed it to be a fallacy — 
a fallacy fraught with mischief; that it escaped an issue 
which was upon us which it wr.s mir duty to meet; that it 
i it by a side path, which led to danger. I thought 
it a fallacy which would surely be exploded. I doubted 
then, arid' still more for some time afterwards, when held 
to a dread responsibility for the position which I occupied — 
I doubted whether I should live to see that fallacy ex- 
ploded. It has been. Let Kansas speak — thefirst great 
Held on which the trial was made. What was the conse- 
t The Federal < ' ■ thdrmcing con- 

■r.ing the contending sections, excited to the high- 
est point upon this question, each to net d forth. iUarmy. 
Kansas became the battle field, and Kansas the cry which 
! I j civil war. This teas the Jtrsttfruit. More 
deadly than the fatal upas, its effect was not limited to the 
mere spot of ground on which the dew fell from its leaves, 
but it spread throughout the United States; it kindled all 
which had b:en collected for years of inflammable mate- 
ria'. It was owing to the strength ef our Government and 
lire good sense of the quiet masses of the people that it did 
not wrap our country in one widespread conflagration. 

What right had Congress then, or what right has it now, 
to abdicate any power conferred upon it as trustee of the 
States'/" * * ******* 

"In 1330, following the promulgation of this notion of 
squatter sovereignty, we had the idea of non-intervention 
introduced into the Senate of the United States, and it is 
Btrange to me how that idea has expanded. It seems to 
have been more malleable than gold, to have been ham- 
mered out to an extent that covers boundless regions un- 
discovered by those who proclaimed the doctrine. Noa-. . 
intervention then meant, as the debates show, that Con- 
gress should neither prohibit nor establish slavery in the 
Territories. That I hold to now. Will any one suppose 
that Congress then meant by non-intervention that Con-. 
gress should legislate in no regard in respect to property 
in slaves V Why, sir, the very acts which they passed at 
the time refute it- There is the fugitive slave law, and 
that abomination of law which assumed to confiscate the. 
property of a citizen who should attempt to bring it into 
■this District with intent to remove it to sell it at some other 
'time to some other place. Congress acted then upon the 
subject, acted beyond the limit of its authority as I be- 
lieved, confidently believed ; and if ever that act comes 
before the Supreme Court, I feel satisfied that they wtl'r 



t'sr 



-p 



i* 



declare it null and void." ****** 
"By what species of legerdemain this doctrine of non- 
intervention lias come to extend to a paralysis of the Gov- 
ernment on the whole subject to exclude the Congress 
from any kind of legislation whatever, I am at a 
conceive. Certain it is, it was not the theory of that pe- 
riod, and it was not contended lor in all the controversies 
we had then. 1 had no faith in it ihen ; I considered it a 
sham ; 1 considered that the duty of Congress ought to he 
performed ; that the issue was before us, and ought to b - 
met, the sooner the better; that truth, would prevail d' pre- 
sented to the people; borne down to-day, it Would rise up 
to-morrow; ami 1 stood then on the same general plea 
which 1 am making now. The Senator from Illinois (Mr, 
Douglas) ami myself differed at that time, as 1 presume 
we do now. We differed radically then, lie opposed 
every proposition which 1 made: voting against a p 
eition to give power to a Ti rritorial Legislature to protect 
slave property which should l>e taken there; voting against 
a proposition to remove the obstruction of the .Mexican 
laws; voting lor a proposition to exclude the conclusion 
that slavery might be taken lb re; voting tor tin- proposi- 
tion expressi) to prohibit its introduction: voting lor the 
proposition to keep in force the laws ol Mexico which 
prohibited it. Some of these votes, it is but just to him I 
should say. I thin!; be gave perforce of his instructions; 
but others of tin n 1 think it is equally fair to assert, were 
outside ot the liuiit.s ol any instructions under which lie 
acted. 

" In 1854, advancing in this same general line of thought, 
the Congress, in enacting territorial lulls, left out a pr vi- 
sion which 1 1 -• i . I always before entered them, rcquirinzthe 
Legislature ol the Territory to submit its laws to me Con- 
gress of the Dili ted States It was sometimes assumed 
that this was the recognition of the power of the Territor- 
ial Legislature to exercise plenary legislation, as might 
that of a Mate, li will be remembered that, when our 
present form of Goveruun lit was instituted, there were 
those who believed . Government should have 

the power of revision o\ . r the laws of a Stale, It was 
long and ably contended for in the convention which 
formed the Constitution; and one of the compromises 
which was made was, escaping from that, in lodge the 
power in the Supreme Court to decide all questions of con- 
stitutional law 

"Bui did this omission of the obligation to send here'the 
laws of the Territories w'ork this grant of power to the Ter- 
ritorial Legislature? CcrUtiuly not; and that it did not, 
is evinced i>y the fact that, at a subsequent peri >d, the or- 
gani ■ act was revised, because the legislation of in.- Tvr- 
ritory of Kansas v as offensive to the Congress ol toe I'ni- 
ted States. Congress could not abdicate its authority ; it 
could not abandon its trust; and when it omitted the re- 
quirement that the laws should be s,-ni hack, it created a 
casus win. o required it to act without the official i 
being laid before •:, as they woul i nave been if the obli- 
gation had existed. That was all the difference." 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President 

Mr. DAVIS. With the permission of the Sen 
ator from ll.inois, 1 wish io say, that it be had 
BubmilU'il to me those e: bs as the text upon 
which he wits going to [ k, ( should 1 ve made 
some verbal corrections, which wouTd have more 
clearly expre; eel my opinion, However, as he 
fins joined issue with me upon ' report a r 
stands, let it he; but, with ! I wish 

to say a word in relation bo a point which will 
riot at all affect his discourse, but which bears 
upon another. It is with regard to a geutleraan 
referred to there as a good and great man — and 
I cordially believe hiui bolh ; the history of the 
times has enabled every one to know that I re- 
ferred to Mr. tJasA. 1 wish to Bay that tin omis- 
sion at the close of a sentence, after the word 
"sent," may leave the inference that the iettee 
was submitted to know whether it was to be sent 
to the person to whom it was addressed. It 
would be an error if any one supposed so. It 
■vjtas read to certain geutk-men to ascertain, if. io 
their view, it should be a — ;ion 

of our opinions, as an exposition of tne party 



creed, or the opinions of the party at that time, 
And so, in relation to the adherence of that good 
and great man to the opinion he then expressed, 
it implies, what I believe, that he adheres to that 
opinion as an abstract opinion still ; but I should 
do great injustice to him if 1 left any one to sup- 
pose that 1 thought that he, in defiance of the 
decision of the Supreme Court, still adhered to 
that opinion, and had not yielded his entire and 
implicit acquiescence in the decision which the 
court has given upon the point. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. ] have yielded to the Sena- 
tor from Mississippi to make this explanation, 
and I am gratified that he has had an opportu- 
nity to make it. I did not. submit these extracts 
to him, tor J took it for granted that he was cor- 
reportvd in fhe Globe, winch 1 found on 
our tables. 1 heird no intimation from him that 
he had been misreporied. 

Mr. DA. VIS. 1 do not say so. I never revise 
the manuscript of the reporters. 

DOUGLAS. 1 only desire now to say to 
the Senator that, while 1 yielded to this explana- 
tion, I shall be obliged to hhn and to all others 
i they will allow me to go through with my re- 
marks without interruption, (us 1 did in his ease,) 
for the reason that 1 have a g eal deal of ground 
to travel over to-day in this debate, which will 
exhaust my strength, and, I fear, your patience; 
and he will have an opportunity of replying to 
rue when 1 shall be through. J intend to treat 
him fairly, kindly, and courteously, in all that I 
have to say, as ! doubt not il ever lias been his 
tion to treat me in debate. 

With this explanation, i shall proceed to re- 
mark, that the facts stated in the copious extracts 
i: i' the Senator's speech, which have been read, 
conclusively show that the doctrine of squatter 
sovereignty, or popular ao\ ereignt) , or non-inter- 
vention, as the Senator has indifferently styled it 
in different parts of his speech, did not originate 
with me, in its application to the Territories of 
the United States; that it was distinctly pro- 
el timed by General ('ass in what is known as hie 
Nicholson letter; that the issue waat&ien distinctly 
presented to fhe country in the contest of 1848; 
that General Casa became tl e nominee of the 
Democratic party with a full know ledge of his 
opinions upon the question of nonintervention; 
that he was supported by the parly on that issue; 
that the same doctrine of non-intervention was 
incorporated into the compromise measures of 
1850, in opposition to the views and efforts of the 
Senator from Mississippi, ami in harmony with 
ihe views ami efforts of myself; tlial it was reaf- 
firmed by the Democratic party :n the Baltimore 
convention of lS5:i; that General Pierce was 
elected President of the United States upon this 
same doctrine of uon intervention; tbat it was 
again affirmed by the Congress of the United 
states, in the Kansas-Nebraska bid of 1854; aud 
that it had its rirsl trial, and yielded its first fruits, 
upon the plains of Kansas in 1855 and 1856. 

Those f'acis are distinctly and positively affirmed 
by the Senator from Mississippi. These facts 
conclusively disprove and refnr.e the charges so 
eften mmein the Senate Chamber within the last 
year, so erroneously aud&o unjustly made against 



me, that I have changed my opinions in regard to 
this question since 1856. The Senator from Mis- 
sissippi has done me a service: he has searched 
the records with a view to my condemnation, and 
the result of his researches is to produce the most 
conclusive and incontestible evidence that this 
charge of having changed rny opinions on this 
question, and which was made the pretext for my 
tvmoval from the Committee on Territories, was 
not true. lie tells you frankly-, what the world 
knew before, that he had always opposed this 
doctrine of non-intervention; that he and I always 
differed upon that point. He always regarded it 
as a fallacy; I as a sonnd principle. He claims 
that, after it has yielded its blighting effects upon 
the plains of Kansas, the Supreme Court has come 
to the rescue, and that lie now is triumphantly j 
sustained in his opposition to this doctrine in 
1848, 1850 and 18">t. Sir, whether we naive been 
sustained and out consistency vindicated is not [ 
«o material as to find out whi'-h is right in the 
point at issue, then aiul now, btJtweeli the Seha- , 
u>r from Mississippi and myself. 

1 propose, in the first place, to invite the atten- j 
tion of the Senate to the fact, that the doctrine i 
of non intervention by Congress with slavery in , 
the Territories was brought distinctly before the 
American people, and especially before the Dem- ' 
ocratic party, in 1847, with n view to its decision ' 
by the convention of the party that was to a* > m 
bie at Baltimore in 1848. The Senator has re- j 
ferred to the letter of General Cass, known as the 
Nicholson letter, which bears date the 24th of 
December, 1847. He tolls the Senate, (what most ] 
of us knew personally and privately' who were j 
here at that day,) that that letter, in hiapui 
was passed around among southern arid north- 
western Democrats, to receive their sanction be- 
fore its publication. The letter wajs prepared, 
and in private circulation, for days and weeks 
before the date which it now bears in its publica- 
tion; The Senator from Mississippi informs u.8 — 
and unquestionably with entire accuracy of re- 
collection — that he, at the time, dissented from 
the doctrine of nonintervention; as stated in the 
NichoKon letter. Other southern Senators, now 
opposed to me— at any rate, i*fter leading dis- 
tinguished politicians, I will not RbeaTi of'Senlt 
tors — would not be able to say that, when it was 
Submitted to them for their approval or disap- 
proval, they condemned it as frankly as the Sen- 
ator from Mississippi did. During' this period, 
while this letter was being privately circulated, 
be s«d how far it would receive the sanction of the 
representative men of the Democratic party, the 
especial friend, the right bower of General Cass 
in that great contest — Mr. Daniel S. Dielririson, of 
New York — presented to the Senate two resohi- I! 
tions embodying the same doctrine. I will ask my j 
friend from Ohio to read those two resolution* 

Mr. PCGII read, as follows : 

" Resolved, That true policy requires the Government ' 
•of the United States to sirenglhen ils political relations i ' 
upon ttns continent by the annexation of eueh contiguous ', 
territory as may conduce to that end aud can be justly j 
obtained, and that, neither in such acquisition nor in the !, 
territorial organization thereof, can any conditions beli 
constitutionally imposed, or institution.? be provided for ! ' 
or established, inconsistent with the rlghU of the people '; 



thereof to form a free sovereign Stale, with the powers and 
privileges of the original members of the Confederacy. 

" Resolved, That in organizing a territorial government 
for territory belonging to the United States, the principle* 
of self-government, upon which our federative system 
rests, will be best promoted, the true spirit and meaning 
of the Constitution be observed, and the Confederacy 
strengthened, by leaving all questions concerning the do- 
mestic policy therein to the Legislature chosen by the 
people thereof." — Congressional Globe, vol. 18, p. 21. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. It will be observed that these 
resolutions of Mr. Dickinson, which were pre- 
sented to the Senate on the 14th of December, 
1847, assert distinctly the very doctrine which 
the Senator from Mississippi then denounced and 
now denounces, and which I then and ever since 
affirmed, and now affirm. I am not aware that 
Mr. Dickinson and General Cass has ever modified 
their views, much less disclaimed the doctrine of 
these resolutions and of the Nicholson letter. 
Yet my record on this question is held up to the 
Senate and to the country as if I stood alone in 
the Democratic party — a heretic then, a heretic 
now — and was therefore not entitled to fellowship 
in the regular Democratic organization. 1 nm 
aware, sir. that some of the people and some ©£ 
the States of this Union now hold different doc- 
trines from those they formerly held upon this. 
subject of non-intervention — or squtter sovereign. - 
tv, as the Senator is pleased to call it, for be u&W 
them as convertible and synonymous term/ — 
non-intervention being the shibboleth of the 
party, and popular sovereignty, or squatter sov- 
nty, an incident or result only, but not the 
f political orthodoxy. 

I will call attention upon this point to a resolu- 
tion adopted by the Legislature of Florida, passed 
in the Semite of that State on the 2*jsth of Decem- 
ber, lx 17. and in the House of Representatives on 
the -V'th of December, 1841, and approved by the 
Governor on the, 30th of December of the same 
year. 1 find these resolutions in the code of law* 
of Florida published by authority of the Legisla- 
ture of that State. I am aware that Florida sub- 
sequently passed resolutions assorting doctrines 
inconsistent with these; but I cite these resolu- 
tions as evidence that the doctrine of non-inter- 
vention, for which T am now arraigned, was not 
deemed to be a political heresy at. that day. It 
may not bo improper here to remark that during 
of Congress, I received a letter from 
a State Senator in Florida inclosing resolutions 
which he had introduced ftfcr the repeal of those 
resotnl tons, atnl denouncing the resolutions, which 
1 will read, as being unsound, revolutionary, utir 
constitutional, dangerous to the rights of the 
South, and denouncing me by name as the great 
author of all this mischief that was to strike down 
southern rights. I will ask my friend from Ohio 
to read the second and third resolutions, v*hich 
bear particularly on this point — for the first osly 
relates to the WHlm.ot proviso— in order to show 
what the Legislature of Florida thought and said 
in 1847 upon this subject. 

Mr. FUG1T read, as foifWs: 

"Sty;. •>. St it further resolved. That, :» the opinion <rf 
this Q< neraj Assembly, a just and correct interpretation ot 
the Constitution of the United Slates rests in the Urtkto- 
Hal,s.n well as Ihe. State Leginhiture'f i ■rclweiw juriiclip* 
lion over the persons of individuals wiihiu thoir res}»ectiv*i 
limits t and that it would.be, arbitrary, unjurt^aad & uswt- 



pation of power on the part of Congress, to annex condi- 
tions to the admission of a State into the Union, or Ihe 
annexing a Territory thereto, involving the right <-f juris- 
diction in Congress over this subject, which exclusively 
belongs to the Territory ilselfbefbre its admission into the 
Union, and to the State afterwards. 

"Sec. 3. lie it further re olved, That it would be an ar- 
bitrary usurpation of power on the part of Congress to 
exclude shivery from any such territory as may hereafter 
be acquired by the United States, either by way of indem- 
nity, by conqui st, or by purchase; that the people of the 
Territory alntfe have the right to determine upon this sub- 
ject; and it is for them, while they remain a Territory and 
for the State, when thej shajl ask to be admitted as:> State, 
to say whether the institution of slavery shall exist within 
the limits of such Tcrrit' ry .>r Slate; they having, by a 
Just interpretation of the Con titution. exclusive jurisdic- 
tion over the subject-matter within their limits." — Laws of 
the State of Florida, 1846 to 1849, page 83. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. It will be observed that in 
these resolutions the State of Florida declared 
that, by a correct construction of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, a Territorial Legisla- 
ture, while in a territorial condition, had tl 
elusive light to determine for itself vrl 
slavery should or should not exist within the 
limits of such Territory. As I have already re- 
marked, Florida subsequently changed her policy 
on that subject. If, however, she solemnly pro- 
claimed that doctrine to the world, in the name 
cf a sovereign State of this Union, telling the 
.northern Democracy oo whal term and condi 
^ions Florida would hold fellowship with them, 
and we accepted the doctrine, I should think she 
tfou'ul forgive us for remaining faithful to hei 
creed, if we can forgivi her for ab • 
I ; annate n no man ; 1 much Ie°s arraign a sover- 
eign State. She had the right to proclaim her 
opinions; aud if subsequently I to the 

coT/clxsion that they were wrong, she ought to 
change them; but having proclaimed them 
then Ranged them, it seems to me a little indul- 
gence, even "quarter," should he granted by 
Florida to those who stand by Florida's original 
position. 

Florida was not the only souther i Ptate whose 
Dem these doctrines in 18 IT, prior to 

the BOKj.ination of General Cass for the Presi- 
dency. I find here some resolutions adopted by 
the Democratic State convention of G orgi 
at MiTreflgeville, in December, 184^1, I ha^ ■< il 
• the-entii>c. proceedings. I haveseen these resolu- 
tions in several Georgia papers recent i y, witl 
statement of the gentleman who cither rej 
them or •eancurred in '.heir passage, and with a 
further statement that these resolutions were 
copied and adopted by several Mate conventions 
in other scuthern States at that pet iod. On that 
newspaper authority, arid that alone, I read these 
resolutions, so far as I find them published in the 
papers, bearing on this question. It is p-oper to 
etate that in the proceedings of the convention it 
appears that, certain gentlemen, eminent for abil- 
ity, eminent for their devotion to southern rights, 
emiue.it for their position in the Democratic par- 
ty, were present, and concurred in these proceed 
tngs. Among these I find F. II. Cone, It. A. L. 
Atkinson, Jesse Carter, W. S. Johnson, Robert 
Griffin, Thomas Billiard, W. W. Wiggins, E. W. 
Chastain, W. J. Lawton, S. W. Colbert, and D. 
Phillips. I find, also, Hon. Mr. Jackson, member 
of -Congress, and Hon. Lucius <4. C. Lnmur, now 



a Representative in Congress from Mississippi, 
but then a citizen of Newton county, Georgia. 
1 will ask my friend from Ohio to read these 
Georgia resolutions, whie'i were good Democra- 
cy at that day, and were copied and adopted by 
several other southern States in their Democratic 
State conventions. 

Mr. PUGH read, as follows: 

" Rewired. That Congress possesses no power under 
the Constitution to legislate in any way or manner in rela- 
tion to the institution of slavery. It is the constitutional 
right of every citizen to remove and settle with his proper- 
ty in any of the Territories of the United States. 
' " Resolved, That the people of the South do not ask of 
Congress to establish the institution of slavtry in any of 
the Territories that may be acquired by the I 'mud States; 
they wmpty require that the inhabitants of each 'Jerri- 
1 in ■•(/m// lie left free to determine for themseUoes ichettier 
"•■ institution of .slavery shall or shall not form a part 
of their social system." 

Mr. DOUGLAS. There again, sir, we find the 
doctrine of non-intervention distinctly defined 
by the Democratic State convention of Georgia. 
Two distint propositions are affirmed; one is, 
that Congress has no constitutional power to 
legislate upon the subject of slavery in the Ter- 
ritories. That, I should think was pretty distinct 
non-intervention. You cannot legislate against 
it.; you cannot legislate for it; you cannot touch 
the subject at all in the Territories. Now, sir. it 
may be, and unquestionably is, t rue that some of 
the eminent men who participated in that State 
convention of Georgia have since changed their 
opinions upon thi~ subject, ami now believe just 
a> conscientiously that it is both within the pow- 
er and the duty of Congress to legislate for the 
protection of slavery in the Territories, as they 
then believed it was unconstitutional for Con- 
cress to do so. All I have to Bay of those emi- 
nent gentlemen, for whose talents I have great 
respect, i J , that if I can forgive them tor having 
abandoned the very doctrine that they invited us 
of the North to rally in support of, 1 think they 
may pardon us for remaining faithful to that doc- 
trine which they and we agreed to stand by. 

In pursuing this subject, I am afraid that I 
shall become tedious to the Senate; but still I 
feel it my duty to present full evidence upon this 
point, showing th.it the Democratic party, from 
1848 to this day, have Btnod pledged, as a cardi- 
nal article in their creed, to the doctrine of non- 
intervention; and for that purpose I shall be 
compelled to have various extracts, and some 
long ones, read, and perhaps to he somewhat te- 
dious in the exposition of the subject, 

1 have already shown on high authority — 
southern authority — that when the Baltimore 
convention assembled in May, 1848, to nominate 
a Democratic candidate for the Presidency, and 
to lay down a platform for the party, the atten- 
tion of the country, the especial attention of the 
Democratic party of the southern States as well 
as of the northern States, had been particularly 
called to this doctrine of non-intervention by 
Congress with slavery in the Territories; and 
hence the nomination of General Cass, with his 
opinions as expressed in the Nicholson letter, was 
not the result of accident or inadvertence; but 
he was chdfcen because his sentiments were the 
sentiments of the vast majority of the Democratic 



party, North and South. I have looked into the 
proceedings of the convention at Baltimore in 
184 8, when General Cass was nominated, and 
made an abstract of the votes. I find that, in 
the slaveholding States, General Cass received, 
on the first ballot for the nomination, 66 votes; 
Mr. Buchanan, 19 votes; Mr. Woodbury, 15; 
Mr. Calhoun. 9 ; General Worth, 6 ; Mr. Dallas, 
3. The following are the southern States that 
voted for General Cass on the first ballot: Dela- 
ware, 3 votes; Maryland, 6 votes; Virginia, 17 
votes; Mississippi, 6 votes; Louisiana, 6 votes; 
Texas, 4 votes; Arkansas, 3 votes; Tennessee, 7 
votes; Kentucky, 7 votes; Missouri, 7 votes. 
These States did not then think that non-inter- 
vention — or squatter sovereignty, as it is now 
called in derision — was such a fatal heresy as to 
furnish sufficient, cause for disrupting the Demo 
cratic party, much less for dissolving the Ameri- 
can Union. They voted for General Cass with a 
knowledge of his opinions on this question ; and 
he was their first choice. Old Virginia did not 
take him then as a choice of evils. She had the 
opportunity of voting for a southern man, illus- 
trious for his talents, public services, and devo- 
tion to southern rights. She had the opportnuitv 
of voting at that time for Mr. Calhoun, of South 
Carolina, on his platform. Old Virginia then be- 
lieved that intervention on the subject of slavery 
meant disunion. Hence she rejected intervention, 
and gave her vote first, last, and all the time, for 
General Cass, the expounder, the embodiment of 
non-intervention. The same remark is true of 
Mississippi, represented now so ably by the Sen- 
ator who arraigned me the other day. He tells 
us that he always fought this doctrine of non- 
intervention. So he has; birt at that time he had 
not the same power in the State of Mississippi; 
he had not made the same impress on that peo- 
ple, by his eminent talents and great public ser- 
vices, as he has since ; and hence he was then 
unable to seduce Mississippi away from the doc- 
trine of non-intervention. Louisiana, too, then 
true to the Democratic creed ; true to the doc- 
trine of non-intervention ; true to the mainte 
nance of the Union; hostile to intervention — 
because intervention led directly to disunion- 
rallied around General Cass as the standard- 
bearer in 1848, first, last, and all the time. So 
of the other States which I have named. 

On the fourth ballot, (which was the last one, 
and the one on which General Cass was nomina- 
ted by a two-thirds vote,) in the slaveholding 
States, General Cass received 94 votes; Mr. Bu- 
chanan, 7 votes; Mr. Woodbury, 13 votes; Gen- 
eral Worth, 1 ; General Butler, 3. The southern 
States voting for General Cass were : Delaware, 
3; Maryland, 6; Virginia, 17; North Carolina, 
11; South Carolina, 9; Georgia, 10; Mississippi, 
6; Louisiana, 6; Texas, 4; Arkansas, 3; Tennes- 
see,?; Kentucky, 7; Missouri, 7. Even South 
Carolina, when she found that her own favorite 
had no chance of a nomination — so soon t.s she 
found that General Cass was the choice of a ma- 
jority of the party — wheeled into line, surren- 
dered her preference, and declared the champion 
of nonintervention as her next choice for ihe 
Presidency. Then she did not think this doctrine 



was sufficient cause either to dissolve the Union 
or to disrupt the Democratic party. 

On the first ballot the northern States gave 
Cass 59; Woodbury, 39; Buchanan, 32; showing 
that General Cass received only 59 out of 130 
northern votes cast, New York not voting in 
consequence of her double delegation ; and in all 
the slaveholding States he received, on the first 
ballot, 66 out of 118 votes, being a majority of 
the whole number. These facts show that Gen- 
eral Cass was not the choice of a majority of the 
northern Democracy at that time, but was the 
choice of a majority of the southern Democracy. 

Now, I shall proceed to show that these votes 
were cast with distinct reference to the doctrine 
of non-intervention as now supported by myself 
and affirmed by the Democratic party at Charles- 
ton, and as resisted by the Senator from Missis- 
sippi and those who seceded from the Charleston 
convention. General Cass, on the fourth ballot, 
received the nomination. The whole number of 
votes cast was 257; necessary to a choice, 170. 
Thereupon the record says: 

"Lewis Cass, of Michigan, having received two thirds 
of the whole number of votes cast, 

"The chairman declared him duly nominated by the con- 
vention as the candidate for President 

" The announcement of this result by the Chair was fol- 
lowed by enthusiastic and long-continued applause, the 
members of the various delegations almost universally 
springing to their feet, and uniting in one spirit-stiring 
shout of approbation. 

" Mr. Toueey, of Connecticut, rose simultaneously with 
Mr. Bryce, of Louisiana, to move that those States whose 
delegates had not voted for General Cass, might have an 
opportunity of changing their vote, so that the nomination 
might be unanimous. This motion was agreed to, and 
the States whose votes had not been cast wholly for Mir. 
Cass, being called " — 

the other States went on to change their votes 
and to make the nomination unanimous. They 
were proceeding to declare General Cass nomi- 
nated on the votes of two-thirds of the members 
present, not two-thirds of the whole number of 
votes in the electoral college. Here you find an 
express decision that two-thirds of those present 
and voting, and not two-thirds of the whole elec- 
toral college was the rule ; New York not voting, 
because she had a double delegation, and neither 
would consent that the other should sit with 
them. Then speeches were made in favor of 
making the nomination unamimous: 

" Mr. McCandless of the Pennsylvania delegation. Mi. 
Humphreys of Maryland, Mr. Wells of New Hampshire, 
Mr. Turne'y of Tennessee, Mr. Toueey of Connecticut, Ml. 
Carey of Maine, Messrs Rantoul and Hallett of Massacho- 
i, tr. Ilibbard of New Hampshire, Mr. Pearce of 
Ruode Island, and Mr. R P. Thompson of New Jersey, 
in brief and eloquent speeches, announced the unanimous 
vote of their delegation for the nominee of the convention, 
and pledging him their cordial and united support." 

These gentlemen had thus far opposed General 
Cass, because they preferred other men: but they 
felt it their duty to withdraw their opposition, and 
support him as the standard-bearer of the party. 

Thereiipon, 

" Mr. Yancey, of Alabama, stated that he desired to hare 
the platform — on which they intended to place the candi- 
date — erected before he would be prepared to pledge hia 
support. 

" Mr. Winston, of Alabama, pledged the people of Ala- 
bama to sustain the nominee. 

" Messrs King, <J. E. Morse, Sydenham Moore, SooU, 
and Borden, each united in the pledge given by Mi. 
Winston." 



a 



Some eminent names in those days are here 
who did not think that the doctrine of non-inter- 
vention was such a fatal heresy as to Form a suf 
ficient justification for disrupting the Democratic 
party, even at the hazzard <if a dissolution of the 
Union. Governor Winston, I believe, is well 
known in Alabama — an eminent citizen. Tie 
pledged Alabama for General Cass on this doe- 
trine of non intervention, carrying the Nicholson 
letter in his hand as the compass by which his 
political action was to be governed. Sydenham 
Moore is not a name unknown to "fame" — a 
most worthy man, eminent in ability, and stand- 
ing well in Alabama, and now represents that 
State with ability and zeal in the House of Rep- 
resentatives. He diil not regard this doctrine of 
non intervention as a fatal blow at southern lights, 
and he felt authorized to pledge Alabama to the 
support of General Casa "Mr. Avant, of Ten- 
nessee, and Mr. Magoffin, of Kentucy, ap< ke in 
favor of the nominees, pledging the support of 
their respective States ;" and the next day the 
platform was adopted, in which the doctrine of 
non-intervention was affirmed in the seventh res- 
olution, which is so familiar that, perhaps, it is 
unnecessary to read it. ["Let us hear it' 'J Let 
it be read. 

Mr. PUGII read, as follows: 

"7. That Congress has no power under the Constitution 
to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the 
several States, and that such States are the sole and proper 
judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs. 
not prohibited by the Constitution ; that all efforts of the 
Abolitionists or others, made to induce ( 'ongress to inter- 
fere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient st( ps in 
relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the roost alarm- 
ing and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts 
have an inevitable tendencj to diminish the happiti 
the people, and endanger fjhe stability and permanency of 
the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any 
friend of our political institution-." 

Mr. DOUGLAS. In 1848, the Democratic con- 
vention were of the opinio-! thai, to countenance 
any interference with slavery by Congress, Was 
dangerous to the peace and harmony of the coun- 
try, and tended to a dissolution of the Union; that 
they would not permit this interference by Abo 
litionists or others. They - ; i.| not regard the in- 
terventionist then any better than the Abolition- 
ist. Southern interventionists and northern in- 
terventionists, by the fair intendment of that 
platform, were put on an equality. Affair that 
platform was adopted, Mr. Yancey, of Alabama, 
feft it to be his duty to record his solemn protest 
against this dangerous heresy of the Territorial 
Legislatures deciding on the slavery qui 
?le came into the convention the next day, May 
"iG, with an elaborate report against this <!• 
this heresy promulgate.! by General Gasa in his 
Nicholson letter, signed by William L. La: 
Alabama, John C. McGehee of Florida, and J. M. 
Commander of South Carolina, accompanied with 
a resolution. I shall ask the Senate to listen 
patiently to the entire report of Mr. Yancey upon 
that occasion, for it embraces every thought, 
every idea, every principle, every pretext as- 
signed at Charleston for withdrawing from the 
recent convention. In order that I may do Mr. 
Yancey full justice, I shall ask the Senate tb lis- 
ten to the entire report, the resolution, and the 



vote thereon. It is only one column of Kilee'a 
Register. 1 may here be permitted to remark, 
that, by anything I have said, or may say of him 
here, 1 mean no personal disrespect to Sir. Yan- 
cey. We are old personal friends. We met as 
members of Congress seventeen years ago. Our 
social relations have always been uninterrupted. 
1 have as much admiration as anv may living for 
his brilliant, his surpassing ability, for bis great 
social qualities, and for the boldness and the 
nerve with which he avows his principles and 
follows them to their logical consequences; al 
though I shrink with horror from ihe conse- 
quences to which his principles would lead this 
Republic. I ask my friend from Ohio to read 
that entire report. 

Mr. PUGH read, as follows: 

" Mr Yancey then rose and said that he approved most 
cordially nf the resolutions, with a single exception. II* 
then begged to present the report of ihe minority of the 
committee, \ inch is as follows: 

'•The undersigned, a minority of the committee on reso- 
lutions, a-k leave respectfully to sudniit a minority report 
to this convention. 

" Beliei ing that the success of '.tie Democratic party will 
depend solely upon the truth or untruth of the principles 
avowed by this convention, and by the nominee thereof, 
the undersigned cannot give their assent to the report of 
the majority. The nominee of this convention is under- 
: stood to entertain the opinion thai Congress has no right 
to interfere with the question of slavery in the States or 
Territories, but that the people inhabiting a Territory have 
the exclusive right to exclude it therefrom. The majority 
of your committee have only adopted this principle as far 
as applicable to the States, and have 'bus refused, in the 
avowal of the cardinal principles of the Democracy, to 
express any opinion upon what is really the most exciting 
and important political topic now before Ihe country, leav- 
ing the people to find an exposition ol the views of the 
great Democratic party of the Union; and of the probable 
course of its Representatives In Congress in the avowed 
opinions of their nominee for the office of President. 

"This course we conceive to be fundi mentally wrong. 
It lias ever been the pride of the Democracy that it has 
dealt frankly and honestly wiih the people. It has scorned 
to conceal its political opinions, it has made it a point of 
opposition to the Whit: party, that it frequently goes before 
the people with a mask upon its brow, and has appealed 
to the masses to rebuke thai part) tor course ao Offensive 
to truth, t ml so unfair to them. Our country 'a institutions 
must find their surest support in an intelligent public opia - 
ion. That public Opinion cannot be Intelligently formed 
as to our views upon those in-uitulions if we refuse to avow 
them, and dare not advocate therr.. 

•• It is useless to deny that this question does not press 
home upon as for our decision. Ten of the sovereign non- 
slaveholding Stales have already expressed decided opin- 
ions upon it. This has been met by counteracting opinions 
in the South, first distinctly avowed by the Stale of Vir- 
ginia, ami since followed up by nearly every State ia thai 
section of Ihe Union. 

" It is idle to call the question nn abstract one. If ab- 
stract in any sense, it is only so to the scctii?:i in which 
have originated the avowals of aggression upon the riihta 
of a large portion of the Union, to wit : the non-stavehold • 
ing States— they own not a dollar of properly to be affect- 
ed by the ascendency of the principle at issue. They have 
not a singli' political right to be curtailed With them, op- 
position to the South on this point is purely a question of 
moral anil political ethics. Far different io it with tho 
South. They own the property which success of this prin- 
ciple will prevent them from earryinsr with them to the 
Territories. They have a common right in the Territories, 
from which they are to be excluded, unless they choose to> 
go there without this property. 'I hey have heretofore 
been considered as political equals in the Union, with the 
same power of expansion and of progress, which has here- 
tofore distinguished ail classes in the Union, and vbich 
has given to as all the distinctive appellation of the ' party 
j of progress.' They own. in common with their brethren* 
'of the North, these Territories, which are to be held by 
! the Federal Government, as a trustee, for common 'ise* 
'[ and common purposes. 



If, therefore, you refuse to meet the issue made upon 
the slaveholding by part of the non-slaveholding States, 
and permit the heretofore expressed opinions of your 
nominee to s'and impliedly as the opinions of this conven- 
tion, you pronounce, in substance, against the political 
equality of the people: against the community of interest 
in the Territories, which it is contended exists in the peo- 
ple ; against the right of one-half of the people of the 
Union to extend those institutions which the fathers of the 
Constitution recognized as fundamental in the framing of 
the articles of union, and upon which rests the great and 
leading principles upon which taxation and political 
power are based. 

In order to obviate such a construction — in order to give 
assurance to the public mind of our entire country that 
the Democracy of the Union will preserve the compro- 
mises of the Constitution, not only in the States, but in 
the Territories; that it recognizes entire political equality 
to exist among the people, and their right to people, un- 
molested in their rights oi property, the vaRt Territories 
whi h the Union holds out as a trust, until sufficiently 
populated to be erecte I into States — the undersigned have 
agreed to present to this body, for its adoption, the follow- 
ing resolution: 

W. L. YANOKY. of Alabama. 

JOHN O.'MoGEHEE, of Florida. 

J. M. COMMANDEK, of South Carolina. 

Rexolvfcl, That the doctrine of non-interference with 
the rights of property of any portion of the people of this 
Confederation, be it in the State or in the Territories, by 
any other than the parties interested in them, is the true 
trepublicau doctrine recognized by this body. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. It will be observed that, in 
that report, Mr. Yancey embodied the whole ar 
gument in favor of intervention for protection, 
or for any other purpose, which we have heard 
repeated over and over again for so many years. 
I doubt whether any Senator can take his own 
speech and find any one idea, or argument in favor 
of that doctrine which is not embodied in the re- 
port of Mr. Yancy. The first statement there is, 
that it is understood that General Ca*s, the nom- 
inee, holds that a Territorial Legislature may 
exclude slavery from the Territory. It was not 
denied that General Cass held that doctrine. It 
was known that lie did; and he was nominated 
because he did hold the doctrine that the people 
of a Territory might either introduce or exclude, 
protect or prohibit, slavery at pleasure. -For that 
reason, Mr. Y&ncey and his two colleagues on the 
committee proceeded to put their protest on re- 
cord. The argument of the equality of the States, 
of which we have heard so much, was urged. The 
other argument, that the Territories are the com- 
mon property, and, therefore, should be open to 
all the citizens, independent of local authority, 
was used. The argument that it is Dotcreditable 
to the Democratic party to go before the country 
dodging the question of the rights of the South 
in the Territories, was brought forward, ft Bays 
that the convention, in the platform, had refused 
to express an opinion on the question whether the 
Territorial Legislature could prohibit slavery or 
not; that it was not creditable to them to avoid 
expressing an opinion on the point; that it con- 
victed the Democratic party of double-dealing in 
the manner that they had charged upon the 
Whigs, and that what rendered it necessaiy to 
have an expression of opinion on that point was, 
that the candidate held that a Territorial Legis- 
lature could exclude slavery. Then he concludes 
with a resolution, which is very adroitly written, 
I know, but, taken in connection with the report, 
baa a clear signification, in harmony with the 
report; 



"That the doctrine of non-interference with the rights 
of property of any portion of the people of this Confeder- 
ation, be it in the States or in theTerritori s, by any other 
than the parties interested in them, is the true republican 
doctrine recognized by this body." 

That is, nobody but the owner of tbeslavemust 
interfere with his right to hold him. Neither Con- 
gress nor a Territorial Legislature must interfere 
with the rights of the slaveholder in theTerri- 
tories to manage and control his slaves. That was 
the proposition Mr. Yancey presented. It was 
submitted to the convention — fairly and boldly 
met; and I will read the vote in the convention, 
by States, rejecting Mr. Yancey's report and reso- 
lution. Mr. Yancey enforced his report with a 
speech, which is here reported, but which is too 
long to quote, and then concluded: 

" I now close by offering the resolution as an amend- 
ment to the report of the committee. 

"The question was taken on Mr. Yancey's resolution; 
and it was. by States, rejected— 86 to 216; as follows: 

',' Ykas — Maryland, 1; South Carolina, 9; George, 9; 
Florida, 3 ; Alabama, 9 ; Arkansas, 3 ; Tennessee, 1 ; Ken- 
tucky, 1—36. 

"Nays — Maine, 9; New Hampshire, 6 : Massachusetts, 
12; Vermont. 6: Khode I?l;tnd,4; Connecticut, 6: New 
Jersey, 7; New York, — ; Pennsylvania, 26 ; Delaware, 8; 
Maryland. 6; Virginia, 1"; North Carolina. 11; Missis- 
sippi, 6; Louisiana, 6; Texas, 4; Tennessee, 12; Ken- 
tucky, 11 ; Ohio. 23; Indiana, 12; Illinois, 9; Michigan, 
5; Iowa, 4 ; Missouri, 7; Wisconsin, 4 — 216. 

Here we find Virginia, North Carolina, Ken- 
tuck}-, Tennessee, Missouri voting against the 
incorporation of the doctrine of intervention for 
the protection of slavery into the platform. They 
voted against the doctrine of Mr. Yancey's re- 
port and resolution. Those States then had the 
opportunity of affirming this doctrine, if they 
thought it ought to be any portion of the Demo- 
cratic creed. Not only the States I have named — 
the border States — voted that way, but you will 
rind voting against this doctrine Mississippi, 
Louisiana. Texas — the very States that have now 
seceded from the Charleston convention, for the 
reason that this same doctrine was not incorpor- 
ated into the platform. In 1848, they voted 
against putting it into the platform; in 1860 their 
delegates bolt the convention because it was not 
put into the platform. The Senate and the coun- 
try will judge who has changed on this question. 
North Carolina, through Mr. Strange, stated her 
reason for voting against this doctrine; which was 
that the resolutions of the platform, as it stood, 
covered the entire doctrine of non intervention 
by Congress in States and Territories. That is 
what he wanted; that Congress should not in- 
tervene, leaving it for the Territories to do ae 
they pleased, so that they did not violate the 
Constitution; and the judiciary to correct their 
triors if they did violate the Constitution. Mr. 
McAllister, of Georgia, explained that George 
voted for the resolution because they did not 
think it went so far as was claimed by Mr. Yan- 
cey in his speech ; in effect, disavowing the doc- 
trine of intervention, which Mr. Yancey intend- 
ed to affirm. 

Now, Mr. President, I think I have shown 
conclusively that in 1848 the Democratic creed 
was non-intervention by Congress with slavery 
in the Territories, either for or against it; that 
Copgress should not interfere either to establish 
or aboSsl it, or protect or maintain it — unquali- 



8 



fied non-intervention. The Democratic party 
was committed to the doctrine. It is true there 
were individual exceptions, men who did not 
believe in this doctrine of non-intervention, and 
the Senator from Mississippi was one of them. 
He supported General Cass under protest, making 
speeches for him, and protesting against his 
Nicholson letter and the doctrines contained in 
it The Senator from Mississippi lias a clean 
record, but a record outside of the Democratic 
party — a record at war with the Democratic 
platform — rebelling against, its principles and 
acquiescing in its nomination. The Senator then, 
as now, granted no quarter to squatter sover- 
eignty, hut he made speeches for the squatter 
sovereignty chief. 

■ I pass now. Bir, to 1850, in order to show clearly 
by the record, as was stated by the Senator from 
Missi-sippi, that the same doctrine of non-inter- 
vention was incorporated into the co.i promise 
measures of 1850, against his will, and on my 
motion. We differed then, as we differ now; he 
against those measures, I for them. I deem it 
my duty, even at the risk of being a little tedi- 
ous, to show that this doctrine was then tho- 
roughly discussed, and that, after a deliberate 
debate, which ran over two months, it was af- 
firmed by a vote of nearly two to one in the 
Senate, and incorporated into the compromise 
measures of 1860. On the 25th of March, 1850, 
the chairman of the Committee on Territories of 
this body (Mr. Douglas) reported two hills— one 
for the admission of California as a State; the 
other, to organize the Territories of Utah and 
New Mexico, and adjust the disputed boundary 
with Texas. On the 19th of April, the 8 
appointed the celebrated committee of thirteen, 
with Mr. Clay at its head, to consider the whole 
question. On the 8th of May, Mr. Clay, as 
chairman of the commit fee of thirteen, rep 
the celebrated omnibus bill to the Senate, which, 
as your records will show, consisted of the two 
printed hills previously reported by myself from 
the Territorial Committee, with a wafer between 
them, and certain amendments interlined in writ- 
ing. One of the amendments, which was made 
in the committee of thirteen, 1 will point out, 
for it involves this distinct question now in im- 
pute. The bill, as it was originally reported by 
myself, defined the powers of the Territorial 
Legislature in these words: 

" Ansi he it further enacted. That the legislative power 
of the Territories shall extend io all rightful subjects of 
legislation consistent with the Constitution ortbe United 
States and the provisions of this act; but no (aw shall be 
passed interfering with the primary disposition of the 
soil," &c. 

As reported from the Territorial Committee, the 
bill was silent on the subject of slavery; the bill 
ignored the slavery question, and conferred on the 
Terri torial Legislature power over all rightful sub- 
jects of legislation consistent with the Constitu- 
tion, without excepting slavery. The committee 
of thirteen reported this amendment to it, after 
the clause ; "but no law shall be passed interfer- 
ing with the primary disposition of the soil," by 
adding "nor in respect to African slavery;" so 
that the committee of thirteen reported against 
the Territorial Legislature passing any law in re 



spect to African slavery. Mr. Clay stated that 
that limitation on the Territorial Legislature had 
been incorporated into the bill against his will 
and his judgment. General Cass, in debate, made 
the same statement that it had been incorporated 
against his judgment. They were in favor of 
allowing the Territorial Legislature to act on all 
rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the 
Constitution, without excepting African slavery; 
but a majority of the committee overruled them. 
When this report came in, the Senator from Mis- 
sissippi objected to the bill, and proposed an 
amendment to the very section to which I refer, 
which 1 will aid: my ftiend to read, with the ex- 
planatory remarks of the Senator in offering it. 
Mr. PUGH. When the bill came up for action 
on the loth of May, Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, said: 

" I offer the following amendment : to strike out in the 
sixth line of the tenth section the words ' in respect to Af- 
rican slavery,' and insert the words 'v it/i those rights of 
property growing out of the vmtituti&n of African »te- 
very as it ewints in any of the States of the Virion.'' The 
object of Die amendment is to prevent the Territorial Le- 
gislature from legislating against the rights of property 
growing out of the institution ol slavery" * > ' "It 
will leave to the Territorial Legislatures those rights and 
powers v. hie!) are essentially necessary, not only to the 
preservation of property, but to the peace of I he Territory. 
It will leave the right to make such police regulations as 
are necessary to prevent disorders, and which will be ab- 
solutely necessary with such property as that to secure its 
beneficial use to its owner. With this brief explanation I 
submit the amendment." 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Thus it. will be seen that the 
Senator from Mississippi objected to the bill, be- 
cause it did no1 contain a prohibition on the Le- 
gislature ot the Territory against legislating in a 
manner hostile to slavery. He wished the Ter- 
ritorial Legislature to have the power to protect, 
but not the power to prohibit. That was his po- 
sition. 1 give him the credit of having been con- 
sistent on that point. 1 wished to give the Terri- 
torial Legislature power overall rightful subjects 
of legislation, leaving slave property and horse 
property and every other species of property on 
an exact' equal footing; leaving the people to make 
their own regulations as they pleased so that they 
did not violate the Constitution. The Senator from 
Mississippi desired an exception as to slavery, to 
the effect that they might protect it, but should 
not adopt unfriendly legislation to it, taking sla- 
very out of the category of other property. Mr 
Clay among other things said, in reply to the Sen- 
ator from Mississippi, what will now be read. 
Mr. PUGH read, as follows: 

"Mr. Clay." * * * "The clause itself was intro- 
duced into the bill by the committee for the purpose of ty- 
ing np the hands of the Territorial Legislature in respect 
lu leg, slating at all, one way or the other, upon the subject 
of African slavery. It was intended to leave the legisla- 
tion and the law of the respective Territories in the con- 
dition in which the act will find them. I slated on a former 
occasion that I did not, in committee, vote for the amend- 
ment to insert the clause, though it was proposed to be in- 
troduced by a majority of the committee. I attached very 
little consequence to it at the time, and I attach very little 
to it at present. It is perhaps of no particular importance 
whatever. Now, sir, if I understand the measure propos- 
ed by the Senator from Mississippi, it aims at the same 
thing. I do not understand bim as proposing that if any 
one shall carry slaves into the Territor> — although by the 
laws of the Territory he cannot take them there— the leg- 
islative hands of the territorial governments shouhi be so> 
tied as to prevent it saying he shall not enjoy the fruits of 
their labor. If the Senator from Mississippi means to ss.y 
that 



9 



" Mr. Davis. I do mean to say it. 

"Mr. Clay. If the object of the Senator is to provide 
that slaves may be introduced into the Territory contrary 
to the lex loci, and being introduced, nothing shall be done 
by the Legislature to impair the rights of owners to hold 
the slaves thus brought contrary to the local laws, / ccr- 
taivlu cannot vote, for it. In doing so, I shall repeat 
again the expression of opinion which I announced at an 
early period of the session." 

Mr. DOUGLAS. There it will be found that 
a distinct issue was made up between Mr. Clay 
and the Senator from Mississippi. The Senator 
from Mississippi insisted that the legislation of 
Congress should be so framed as to recognize the 
right of the slaveholder to go into the Territory 
and hold his property in defiance of the local iaw. 
Mr. Clay said that he would never agree to the 
recognition of the doctrine that you could carry 
slaves to a Territory and hold them against the 
lex loci, in defiance of the local law. Uu this dis- 
tinct issue it was that the Senator from Missis- 
sippi and the illustrious Kentuokian differed. 
Mr. Clay was against the Wilmot proviso; but 
he was against repealing by Congress the Mexi- 
can laws that were adverse to slavery. He was 
against the recognition by Congress of the alleged 
right to carry slaves there, aDd hold them in vio- 
lation of tiie local law. lie was against any act 
that would prevent the people of the Territories 
from deciding for themselves whether they would 
have slavery or not. In other words, Mr. Clay 
supported and sustained every vote which the 
Senator from Mississippi brings in judgment 
against me, except one; and that one was given 
under instructions, as the Senator from Missis- 
sippi is well aware. 

This debate shows clearly that the compromise 
measures of 1850 were intended to assert the 
principle of non-intervention by Congress with 
slavery in the Territories, leaving the people to 
do as they pleased, so that they did not violate 
the Constitution, and leaving the courts to ascer- 
tain whether they did violate.it or not. 

Mr. GREEN. 'Will the Senator allow me ? 
. Mr. DOUGLAS. I cannot yield for interrup- 
tion. 

Mr. GREEN. Very well. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. I ask my friend (Mr. Pur.n) 
to continue the extracts -from that debate, on 
both sides, a little further, in order to put them 
on the record. 

Mr. PUGH read as follows: 

"Mr. Davis." * * * "We are giving, or proposing 
to give, a government to a Territory, which act rests upon 
the basis of our right to make such provision. "We sup- 
pose we have a right to confer power. If so, we may 
mark out the limit to which they may legislate, and are 
bound not to confer power beyond that which exists in 
Congress. If we give them power to legislate beyond 
that, we commit a fraud or usurpation, as it may be done 
openly, covertly, or indirectly." 

To which Mr. Clay replied : 

"Now, sir, I only repeat what I had occasion to say be- 
fore, that while I am willing to stand aside and make no 
legislative enactment one way or the other — to lay off the 
Territories without the Wilmot proviso, on the one hand, 
with which I understand we are threatened, or without 
an attempt to introduce a clause for the introduction of 
slavery in the Territories— while I am for rejecting both 
the one and the other, I am content that the law as it ex- 
ists shall prevail ; and if there be any diversity of opinion 
as to what it means, I am willing that it shall be settled 
by tl/e highest judicial authority of the country. While 
1 am content thus to abide the result, I must say that I 



cannot vote for any express provision recognizing the 
right to carry slaves there." 

To which Mr. Davis rejoined that — 
" It is said our Revolution grew out of a preamble; and 
I hope we have something of the same character of the 
hardy men of the Revolution who first commenced the 
war with the mother country; something of the spirit of 
that bold Yankee who said he had a right to go to Con- 
cord, and that go he would ; and who, in the maintenance 
of that right, met his death at the hands of a British sen- 
tinel. Now, sir, if our right to carry slaves in these Ter- 
ritories be a constitutional right, it' is our first duty to 
maintain it." 

Mr. DOUGLAS. These extracts confirm the 
statement that the issue was precisely as I have 
stated it, and that the Senator from Mississippi 
then took the ground that he now maintains; but 
that Mr. Clay% the champion of the compromise 
measures of 1850, took the opposite ground. Mr. 
Clay, in that very speech, answered the objection 
about there being two constructions of this doc- 
trine of non-intervention. He was for non-inter- 
vention by Congress; no restriction upon the 
Territorial Legislature; and then leaving it to 
the courts to decide whether the territorial enact- 
ments were constitutional or not. That was the 
position of Mr. Clay; that was the position of 
the champion of those measures. 

The Senator from Mississippi asserted his right 
to go with his property, in violation of the local 
law, and said he was going to act upon the doe- 
i trine of the sergeant at Lexington, who said that 
he had a right to go to Concord, and was going. 
The Senator from Mississippi modified his amend- 
ment so as to make the language more palatable; 
but not to change the princir le, to wit: that the 
Territorial Legislature might legislate to protect 
slavery, but not legislate in hostility to it In 
that shape, his amendment was rejected. Then 
Mr. Chase, of Ohio, offered the counterpart, to 
restrict the power, so that the Territorial Legis- 
lature might prohibit slavery, but not protect or 
tolerate it. That was rejected by precisely the 
same number of votes as the proposition of the 
Senator from Mississippi. By these votes, the 
Senate showed that the object of the bill was to 
leave the Territorial Legislature to do as it pleas- 
ed, subject to the Constitution, with the courts 
to ascertain when it violated it; but not to put 
any restriction on the Territorial Legislature, 
except that which the Constitution imposed. 

Now, sir, I am compelled, in this connection, 
to do what I dislike to do — quote from my own 
speeches, to show that I then took the position 
I do now in vindication of the ground taken by 
Mr. Clay, and in opposition to that assumed by 
the Senator from Mississippi. I will ask the Sen- 
ator from Ohio to read that extract. 

Mr. PUGH. Upon these amendments — the one 
affirming the pro-slavery and the other the anti- 
slavery position, in opposition to the right of 
the people of the Territories to decide the slavery 
question for themselves — Mr. Dougla6 said : 

"The position that I have ever taken has been thai 
this and all other questions relating to the domestic affaire 
and domestic policy of the Territories, ought to be left to 
the decision of the people themselves; and that we eught 
to be content with whatever way they may decide the 
question, because they have a much deeper interest in 
these matters than we have, and know much better what 
institutions suit them than we, who have never been there 
can decide for thern. I would therefore have much piel 



10 



: 
rr: is : ■: 





as ee jjcssnaeocai caag p a sga a te jui 

in : i: : -: : : t- -rL -_ \ _r : -> r -^.i 

_ . • ■ 

f— ■ „ -. -. -. - .. • . i :i. . i ■■*---: : -~ i : . 

• - • . • 

'• . ■ • < . • -_- 1" .' . - ■ : ..'■ ; 

am Wkgmr eumHtimm* oi steir mma. I 
.ifVHel ± 5.-- 
• '.: U: ;-r ; - • : : 1 : ■ _ ■ :- ; . -_" 

::■ • " - .-:- r*- 

•i- :':; n - . : : - - : i : :;-ri:>..;:': r_ 
___ . __ ; _^_ - - --_.7-.__; 1 ;.___: -- ._.-t. It 

P-Wcmot s___a ____>_ I take kv. I wiE a-xt ask : 

— j :';•.__ : " -__._. j ■ -;' ;_.;_•-_.: .* z :ir - -- . i 

«f Ge&ar-il Cassia opp«i-i__«a to ca* iiaes-im-ect 

_________&*-_, sad also to _he 

aw fitrTtf- isc, of uhia, ___«_ to ivror 

:-:' :i- -v ;- 1 . : .-. .. _: . --.. . v __ ■ _._: _ 

. - - 

___:._._-__:: ±'t__ : _ _ .- 1 ± . - _ : _ I_ : _ i i__ _ 

------ 

ui " : . ... i : - : 7 -x - r . i :.<- ' - ■- ■-.- i _ 

■»-. .i- .--__.- ■/. i _. .:r ; _ _;■:_ _i- ... v - • :-.- — - 

- 

: 7 -_i - :•. -r. :. -=■:'. -_- -• : . 

I -. . - . ■ — 11-7 ;-..__.____ 

'-:—_-:. 1 JL _1_ ~-~ •'. 73 :- 1_. 




• : ; . — l; "."•::■- " -■- - !-.:--■ . - 1 - — - 
.•:=■ ' :- -7 : :_- ._._ v ::-:,r :'•■; n II -.- -- - . ._.- 

— 
- 
■ _ 

__-___.._: :i.: __-" " _ "1-7 ------- ""- - _ 

- " 
- - • 
i . : . - : . - .', '- - " " 7 . -. -.: _ — _ ' .- 

power ad >_7__y to pr 
the reeor: tt Mr. Dm 

- set mil is the 
.._-_: -. it --T-- " - : ". - T-? '.;.•■ -■■ .i. _ -._ ;: z.- 

■ ■ - 

the C oartiUil ici 

s_ : ~ -:t ':- --;-< :'• " :: ; i- . -'- ~ ••-- 
i-.- :■:'■ ii-r i-l - "- i.: z '■-'. .-„•'.: V. i; 

- 
gar" "" ". :_ 7»3a wiH re 

yaar wrtioB :o strike -Kit sLas L 
\.- -.---': \ . . - - . ■ ■.- - - . '. 

■ ■■. -: \ -■-:. i:,'. - . ■ :' .-i " " ■ - ----- • :' ■ v 

HaaqMac-T ! -rie,) sow ao more, j 

■ ete owt ; amd I Aoogia^ wB otfewgteay. I ^ 

;*i 1 "a " : - - .- 1 L* I -il .l.-r - i-Ir . : 

- 

; . i ; v 7 - . . . _ . - „-„-. t . 



: t a rote ; 

; ;hos re- 

-- - : - ■- . . 1 7 :' :i7 j7ii: ■ - i 2 . 7 - t~ 
" : :i: . 

- 
■td I did differ to taat cea toA . I e*iv«eated 
7- sioa tbe: w. He feagat 

::.-..- -7 7 7 V _ - - 7 -. - Fi; 

: : 

- -: ' 

i-T - - ~ - - - - -- -i- ■—. _-•--.- 

araed iaraedtotelj after the passage of those 

t csidst of a terrifie ea 
dk aa j. S ■ ^rtoera agitatocs had ia- 

-:" 7 7.7. It i . : ---:.. - ■':..r::rv.::: 

» - - 

-- - - _ -: -i ■ : . - - _-t - ■ ; . :' 7 i- 
V_-- ;1t._ ._- :i ::' :. t i.t 777 :.->7i 
had imflliaaii 1 the passoas of the aoathera peopla 
._- i: -.::'::/:::. -- tt.- ■-—-.- 

:-i.:.:.: 7 . - t .. . _ . 7 - - 1 - ' t ■ " I 17. 

--"--j.'t -7:7 i-iii :. :_; - 7 2- •.:: 

Saath, \j aarthera iaterreatioatotB aad swthera 

1 - - T . : ■ 7 .i. i; i 7 - ..77 . - i 7 1 - 7 ". . 7 ... 7. 1 

beea pa«fd bj the aiajorit^ — the oae repreaeBfe- 

. .: . i.- " . i _. ::1t-i : ji - i. ; - . --;.- 

t.-- _ i.r. :-t :_t; It -7:::. j ■ - -i.:;;- 

z ,- " :_:j-- 7 ._-.!_.: ; 7_t.v 

- JO 1-7 TilT 

'.—-:.- :; — r. S'l"- : r_i!-:- r. " i"--i'. : 3 
.. - . ■ . . 

-v - - 7 - — - 7 ----. - — - -.. :? 

to whk-Ii I tjs reeeiTial wbea I landed to Cbi- 

: : V - . . : ...:.-_: I-;. A ■ hi [Jsta 

: -:---- 7 :•--...:;. 1 - i : . - . s - - : j . ----- t 

jiua t tto g the poliee to withheld aaj ar^ft- 

aase to the exic^doo of the law. proclaims: 

to be a vtotottoa of the law of God aad of the 

Coast&Btioa. The staadard of rebeiisoa was 

- - ... TV. 7 . . . : t i.7- :--tt.-. -: A 

. 

- . - ~ i.7 . - . . . : 7. . 7 ; ': ; --'-'■ - 1 1 : "■ . - : 

- . .---1- -. -.--£ :•: i_t : . r: . : i : 1 .. :--'."- 

"" : i : 

hose people that ther had beea dee-r 
, aboat the eharaeter ■. f those measures ; that the 
facidve ftore law was right ; that it was as aes 
jreqatoed bj the Coaathatioa of the conntrr, 
1 whieh we were boaad to 3app€>rt ; that the com- 
proniire raeasBres were, ail of than, focaded 09 
. :::-..-. n . ?:n: : -.1 . .--. ~ - tt -- - . ;; 
the fact that I met that infartoted 

-- . - 

...... . . 

-. t :■- "i -- .- --- .-77 ■ :'.:t : : :-:;'-. : : 

. - - - . . 

.-.--. - 7 . :' . : : -.-^7_ -.-.- 
it :'.-.-" . 1. :-7 . i _ -- . _t ..- . m 1.; .- -. 77.: 

those measBres — a speeeh made under sceh or- 

. .-■.-• ;-. -7 -1 ■-■ 11 _'"--"- :':-t -7 --.■:-:.-.- " .; 
— 

- - 1 -It.: . T '. .-- ; .7: ,_T _ 

: 

7 -•--.--•.•-• >-T :•- . . - ■-.- r--i: '.-.;- 



11 



"itsrnal coo- j 

•apposed Jhai lb"*- 

- . - 

■ 
tindr --n& bo 

reason . j K»* an j of iteir tntefii- 

- 
the ir »rrival in the <y.<n»trj\ when tber had become fami- | 

i 
- 

■ 
law? r- rib>» 



iz < ■ -■ - - - 


- 


1 




1 




sre th 




: with : 


hi -i. ■:•-.-• 


- 




edcrxrj 




uon of liK. Iibe 




tioo — to de»erm 






- -io 




. 




'■- 10 eaci 


i Siaie u> d« 



-••-;-?- y :::e ' -:.- 
~eii. and I know of 

r t\.- 

- ; n all eases, except tfce icstaneee 

- - . • 

_ 

I 

i 

■ 
were eircn] . 

_ 

- 
I 

> 

I i 

me "rr 

■ 
real I told I 

] ocgbl 

I oaes-l 

■ 

sought 1 

- 

princ _ 

er hold ri- 
Is it fair for S 

• ■ 

-■--•>' 
and r. 5 the Senators Stal 

all r> kl organic;: - 'rate 

shot: 

TV in my appeal to my 

otrn people in ; n To 

the views of the Senator from II - 
was it with liis appe:. 

tri ha - _ I - • • ■ 

oked to i! 



. :ii£E3oai 



- 
- . 

com." a* 1 

_ - - 

I 

- 

- 
appeal to the people of li 

- 

- 

18-50: the 5 . 

- 
I 

; 

1 

Ihere "! 

I 

- 



i 

• 
the 

; • : 

reorgia, 1 . 

- 

it Zr-.-cSSSTY to 

- 
1 81 1 - 

- - 
(adc- 

- 

the - - ; • " . 

t going ■ t— 

I 

■ ' 

j 

eorgii 

t 1 '- - 
- ' • - - 

- 

_-.-•■ 



12 



he had opposed the measures as a Senator, feel- 
ing that it was his duty to sustain the constitu- 
ted authorities, on the other hand, led those who 
•were in favor of acquiescing in the action of 
Congress. And South Carolina herself decided 
ageinst those men who were going to break up 
parties and the Union on this question of •inter- 
vention and non-intervention. 

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. President 

Mr. DOUGLAS. I prefer not to yield. 
Mr. HAMMOND. One single word. 
Mr. DOUGLAS. Well. 

Mr. HAMMOND. At the time of the passage 
of the compromise measures, Mr. Rhett was not 
in the Senate. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. I know he was not. 

Mr. HAMMOND. The question that arose 

Mr. DOUGLAS. I must say to my friend 

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Fitzpat- 
bjck.) Does the Senator from Illinois yield the 
floor to the Senator from South Carolina? 
Mr. DOUGLAS. I cannot. 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from 
South Carolina will resume his seat. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. I am aware that Mr. Rhett 
was not in the Senate at that time; but Mr. 
Rhett's opinions were known then as well as 
they are now; and he led the men who were not 
willing to submit to the compromise measures of 
1850, and was rebuked by his own people, and 
he became a submissionist perforce. Here you 
have the verdict of the American people, North 
and South, in favor of the doctrine of non-inter- 
vention. The southern interventionists, who had 
been defeated and overthrown at home, at last 
came to the conclusion that they, too, would sub- 
mit, not from choice, but because they could not 
help it; and they said then to us, "Let us reu- 
nite the Democratic party, and present a united 
front against the Abolitionists of the North." 
We said to them: "Gentlemen, although you 
have erred; although you have erred egregi- 
ously on this question, in resisting non-interven- 
tion, we will forgive you, if you will come up 
to Baltimore and acquiesce in a resolution estab- 
lishing non-intervention for the future." We re- 
ceived the Senator from Mississippi on the terms, 
as we supposed, of acquiescence in the compro- 
mise measures of 1850, and the affirmance of non- 
intervention as the rule of the party in the fu- 
ture. We granted him "quarter" after he had 
been condemned, and was ready for execution — 
Mr. DAVIS. I scorned it then, and scorn it 
now. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes, sir; as I scorned his 
threat not to grant " quarter" the other day. I 
like the spirit that animates him to scorn "quar- 
ter." But, sir, the convention at Baltimore, 
nevertheless, did ratify and confirm these com- 
promise measures as containing the rule of action 
of the party. He will not deny that the conven- 
tion, by a unanimous vote, decided in favor of 
the compromise measures; that General Pierce 
was nominated for President on that issue; that 
he was elected on that issue and none other; that 
he never would have been elected but for that 
issue; and the Senator from Mississippi became 
Secretary of War by virtue of the same issue. 



These are stubborn facts. He never could have 
been Secretary of War if the Democratic nomi- 
nee had Dot been elected. General Pierce could 
never have been elected or nominated if he had 
not stood upon the issue of non intervention by 
Congress with slavery in States and Territories. 
When the party came together, we, the friends 
of the compromise measures of 1850; we, the 
friends of non-intervention, were magnanimous 
and tolerant. We made no issues upon those 
who had differed with us ; we were generous and 
forgiving ; we did not remind them of their faults, 
nor of their humiliation. We recognized them 
as our equals. We never expected to be told 
that we were to be pursued to the death ; and 
that "no quarter" was to be granted to us when- 
ever you got the accidental power to jnflict re- 
venge. We are tolerant. If we succeed now, 
we do not propose to proscribe anybody because 
of a difference of opinion, so long as he remains 
in the Democratic organization and supports ita 
nominees. 

Mr. President, having shown that General 
Pierce was nominated and elected on this princi- 
ple of non-intervention ; that he stood pledged by 
every dictate of honor and fidelity to carry it out 
in good faith, I will now proceed to show how it 
was carried out in the enactment of the Kansas- 
Nebraska bill. At that time the Senate of the 
United States had a chairman of the Committee 
on Territories who did unquestionably reflect the 
sentiments of the body, and of the Democratic 
party in the body. It having become necessary 
to organize the Territories of Kansas and Ne- 
braska, the Committee on Territories, through me, 
as its chairman, on the 4th of January, 1854, 
made a report to this body, accompanied by a bill. 
In this report we set forth distinctly the princi- 
ples upon which it was proposed to organize these 
Territories. I will ask my friend from Ohio to 
read an extract from that report, to show what 
were those principles. 

Mr. PUGH read, as follows: 

" [n the judgment of your committee, those measures ftha 
compromise measures of 1850J were intended to liave a far 
more comprehensive and enduring effect than the mere ad- 
justment of the difficulties arising out of the recent, acquisition 
of Mexican territory. They were designed to establish certaiD 
great principles, which would not only furnish adequate reme- 
dies for existing evils, hut, in all time lo come, avoid the perils 
of a similar agitation, by withdrawing the question of slavery 
from the Halls of Congress and the political arena, and com- 
mitting it to the arbitrament of those who weie immediately in- 
terested in, and alone responsible for, its consequences. With 
a view of conforming their action to the settled policy of the 
Govern men I, sanctioned by the approving voice of the American 
people, your committee have deemed it'heir duty to incorporate 
and perpetuate, in their territorial bill, the principles and spirit 
of those measures." 

After presenting and reviewing certain provi- 
sions of the bill, the committee conclude as fol- 
lows: 

" From these provisions it is appaient that the compromise 
measures of IH50 affirm and rest upon the following propositions- 

" First. That all questions pertaining to slavery in ihe Ter 
ritories, ami in the new States to be formed therefrom, are to 
be left to the de-ision of the people residing therein, by their 
appropriate representatives, to be chosen by them for that pur- 
pose, 

" Second. That all cases involving title to slaves, and ques- 
tions of personal freedom, are referred to the adjudication of 
the local tribunals; with the right of appeal to the Supreme 
Court of the United States. 

" Thud. That the provision of the Constitution of the United. 



13 



States in resppp.t to fugitivps from service is to be carried into 
faithful execution in all the organized Terriloriesthe same as in 
the States. The substitute for the bill which yonr committee 
have prepared, anil which is commended to the favorable action 
of the Senate, proposes to cany these propositions and princi- 
ples into practical operation, in the precise language of the 
compromise measures of ii50." 

Mr. DOUGLAS. It appears, from these ex-. 
tracts from the report of the Committee on Terri- 
tories, that we did not propose to mislead any 
man, or to permit any man to he misled, in re- 
gard to the principle on which the proposed ter- 
ritorial actum was to he based. The principles 
were distinctly set forth: first, that the slavery 
question was to be banished forever from the 
Halls of Congress, and remanded to the people of 
the Territories who were immediately interested : 
secondly, that all questions involving the title to 
slaves, and matters of personal freedom, were re- 
ferred to the adjudication of the local tribunals, 
with a right of appeal to the Supreme Court of 
the United States. Here non-intervention was 
established as an invariable rule of action; the 
Territories were to legisla'e as they pleased, so 
that they did not violate the Constitution; and if 
they passed any law impairing, or injurious to, 
the rights of property in slaves, suit should be 
brought in the local court of the Territory, with 
a right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the 
United States; and that we would abide the result 
of such decisions. Then the fugitive slave law 
was to be faithfully executed and carried into ef- 
fect. Can any man have an excuse for not know- 
ing that the true intent and meaning of the Kan- 
sas-Nebraska act was, that Congress renounced 
forever all right or pretext for interfering with 
slavery in the Territories, either to establish, pro 
hibit, or protect? Remember, the questions to be 
referred to the courts were such questions as 
should arise under the territorial enactments, and 
the cases all were to go into the local courts, with 
a night of appeal. Certainly, if gentlemen did 
not understand the provisions of the bill, it was 
not the fault of the committee that reported it. 

I insist that the terms of the bill are still more 
explicit on this point. Having given notice, in 
the report, of what we intended to do, and how 
we intended to do it, and for what purpose we 
put the provision in the bill itself in language so 
plain that he who runs may read, there can be 
no excuse for not understanding it. In the four- 
teenth section of the bill we provided: 

"That the Constitution and all laws of the Unitpd States 
which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force 
and eff.-ct within the said Territory as elsewhere within the 
United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory 
to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 
ti. 1820, which being inconsistent with the principle of non-in 
tervention by Congress with slavei \ in the Slates and Territories, 
as recognized by tin- legislation of 1850, commonly called the 
'compromise measures,' i- hereby declared inoperative and void ; 
it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate 
slavery into any Teniiory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, 
but to leave ihe people thereof perfectly free to foim and regu- 
late their domestic institutions in their own way, subject onl\ 
lo the Constitution of the United States." 

There you find several distinct propositions 
affirmed in the body of the bill — that is the pro- 
vision of the bill which the late Colonel Benton 
denounced as being a mere stump speech ; because 
the drafter of the bill was careful enough to in- 
corporate the distinct propositions which it was 



intended to carry out. We did not mean to leave 
it in doubt. In the first place, the principle an- 
nounced was, that we repealed the Missouri com- 
promise because it was inconsistent with the prin- 
ciple of non-intervention by Congress with slavery 
in the States and Territories, as affirmed in the 
compromise measures of 1850. There is the as- 
sertion, that the compromise measures were in- 
consistent with intervention for any purpose; that 
it was necessary to establish non-intervention, 
without any exception or any qualification, in 
order to carry out the principle of the compromise 
measures of 1850; and we repealed the Missouri 
compromise merely for the purpose of applying 
that principle and banishing the slavery question 
from Congress, and remanding it to the people of 
the Territories. That was the object, the only- 
object, for which we ever repealed it. Every 
Senator who voted for the Kansas-Nebraska bill 
declared by his vote that non intervention was the 
rule in the compromise measures of 1850. He is 
estopped from denying it; and it was well un- 
derstood, at the time, that we were making an 
indorsement of the principle of the compromise 
measures of 1850; and we insisted that we would 
never repeal the Missouri restriction until we had 
that recognition. I remember well that when 
southern Senators, who had opposed the compro- 
mise measures of 1850, came to me and asked me 
to strike out the words "being inconsistent with 
the principle of non-intervention by Congress 
with slavery in the States and Territories, as 
recognized by the legislation of 1850, commonly 
called the compromise measures," I asked them 
why ? They told me they had voted against the 
measures of 1850, and this seemed to stultify 
them, by compelling them to affirm them. I said, 
in these consultations, "You have agreed to with- 
draw your opposition and acquiesce, and I must 
have it inserted in the bill, that we repeal the 
Missouri restriction only for the purpose of car- 
rying out the principle of non intervention;" and 
there are men within the hearing of my voice to 
whom these reasons were given. It was con- 
sidered as rather a bitter pill to those who had 
opposed the compromise measures of 1850; but 
we insisted that they should swallow it as the 
only condition on which we would pass such a 
bill. We had the recognition of the principle 
and we had the pledge of honor of every Senator 
who voted for the Kansas Nebraska act, that he 
would stand by the doctrine of non intervention 
in all time to come. The Journal shows it. We 
took his bond, and recorded it on the Journal; it 
still exists, and will be imperishable. 

What else is asserted? 

" It being the trrje intent and meaning of this act not to' 
legislate slavery into any State or Territory, nor to exclude it 
thtrefrom " 

That does not tell what the intent was, but what 
was not the intent. What was the intent? 

" But to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and 
regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject 
only to the Constitution of the United States." 

That was the intent. Every man who voted 
for the bill declared, on his oath, that that was the 
intent: non-intervention by Congress; the people 
left free to do as they pleased, so that they did 



M 



not violate the Consti ad the courts to' 

find ont whether they violated the ponstitnUon ef 
the United States or nut ; ; .•; to 

interfere in any case. That is the way we ag 
to this bilL The record shows it. 1 ha\ e bo con- 
troversy with any in. »n who was pot a mei 
of the body at the time the bill pas >ed, nor with 
any man who has changed his opinions since ami 
will avow the change; but 1 assert that, beyond 
cavil, beyond dispute, beyond pretext, the object 
was, as avowed iu the bill itself — non interven- 
tion by Congress with slavery in the 
(Territories; and I cannot permit it to be 
without reply, thai non-intorvei : only 

that Congress should not • >r prohibit 

slavery, and did not mean that it should a< 
tcct it. Sir, the record shows that it did i 
that Congress should tt< ?er interfere ''"ran} 
pose, either to protect, prohibit, or abolish. 

That wvy question was raised by a Senator 
from Michigan, Mr, Stewart, while the bil 

Sending, after this proposition which 1 have 
ad been voted in. lie Baid that while we had 
stated the principle co 
the bill would be, by i 

promise, to revive the old French lawB protecting 
slavery, and that thus we should have intei 
io the very act of non inter 'eoiog, b' 
a law for the prol ■ :' slavery. Thai 

hifl opinion. Jlr. Stuart laid down the pr< 
tion as a lawyer that, to repeal a repeal) 
revived the former act; and hence, when we] r- - 
pealed the Missonri compromise we revived the 
French law that had become void when that 
compromise was established. That eminent law- 
yer and jurist, Mr. Badger, of North Carolina, 
replied that Mr. Stewart had properlj 
common law rule on I el ; hut that the 

civil law rule was different, that, where ever the 
civil law existed, if you repealed a repeal it • 
it did not revive the former act, and bene* 
an amendment was necee arj on thai point. Alter 
consultation, an amendment was prepared, which 
is known to the eountry as the Badger amend- 
ment, the object of which was to declare that 
Congress should not protect slavery itself, nor do 
any act by which it should be protected, con? | 
trary to the will of the people; that Cot 
would not only not protect it, but would not do 
anything that would cense a revival of any law 
that would protect it, the object being to leave 
the Territories a white sheet of papier, wilh no- 
thing but the Constitution upon it, ami to sav to 
the people, "Go and write on it what you p] 
slavery, if you want it; and no slavery, if you do 
not want it." It was to be, in the classic lan- 
guage of that day, a clean tabula rasa. The way ', 
we understood it. the way the people understood 
it, was the way it reads now. Let me call v<nir 
attention to the Badger amendment, to show that 
that proviso was put in for the express ipnrpo 
declaring that Congress would not even permit 
any old law which would protect slavery to be 
revived. That amendment first, was in the very ; 
language that it should not revive any law which 
would protect or establish slavery. It was mod- 
ified so as to read in these words: 

" Provided, That nothing herein contained (.hall be con 



-.tru'it to revive or )>nt in force nnv la» or regulation whirh 
may have cm led nxioi to the act of ibe (iih oi' March, If2*, 
either protecting, establishing, or abolishing ilavi-iy." 

That is t gresa will do neither; eaefc 

is inconsistent with non intervention, These 
bill. I well remem- 
ber the historj of the Badger amendment When 
I found it aeeeesary to put it in, to satisfy the 
ilea of some men as to whether the repeal ef 
the Mi fiction would not revive the old 

French law, 1, as chairman of the committer', 
having charge of the bill, went be every Senator 
in the endly to the measure, who was 

then present, to know whether it was sati-fae- 
and that, too, after the debate; and .-very 
single "lorth and Souih, who was then 

it and friendly to the bill, agreed to that 
in those precise word- I remember 

the ia«.t one wIp-Iii 1 Bftiwultedi I saw Mr. IbidL 1 ' r 
entering from the door uf the cloak room at the 
comer, lie had been ont| and 1 went to consult 
him. He said, ' jht." I suggested to 

him thai I -very Senator, going over 

all th • ho W«S friendlv to the bill, and 

, to it, " Cei iainly," said 

•• Now," said I, "who shall offer it?" Said 

- Ht horn man. A 

northern man bronght Forward the repeal, and a 

southern m in ought to bring forward the proviso 

- the old laws for the protection 

91 ." i asked lum i! he wtnrld do i' I 

tjeinlyi sir," seed be. He walked right to 

hie desk an Pending the vote on the 

• nth. rn Senatois e:.nie 

in, who were not aware oi the agreement snd 
retive; and those were 1 1 • 
only negati' ding to mv recollec- 

tion, against the Badger intendment I Bay, then, 
the Badger hum ndment was put in for the pur» 

I ■ nly pnTpoee, of declaring that, 

while > would not interfere, it would not 

permit ; >^ ■ eonsequei of its act any law to 

be revived thai would either protect or abolish 
slavery, or deprive the people of the light to do 
as llo j d that question, 

Mr the record ie eo full, so explicit 

on th:- . it there is no room for miscon- 

struction. The only point on which anybody 
differed, so far as 1 know, was the simple one of 
the extent of the limitation imposed by the Con- 
stitution on the Territorial Legislature, That was 
the point referred to the courts. Slavery was 
banished forever from Congress; the people wert 
to d i as they pleased, so that they did not vio- 
late the Constitution ; and, if they did, the courts 
were to determine the extent of the limitations 
d by the Constitution on their action. 
That was atated to be the object in the report 
accompanying the bill. That is shown to be the 
object, in the judiciary clause ol the bill; giving 
jurisdiction to the territorial courts in all eases 
touching the title to slaves, or personal freedom 
without regard to the amount involved in con- 
troversy, as in other coses, I could take up the 
debate* and show that it was understood at that 
time, ami by eminent southern men, that that 
was the only point referred to the courts. I will 
trouble the Senate only with one authority on 



15 



that point, and I quote him simply because of 
his eminent character and the respect this body 
and the country have for him — I mean Mr. Hun- 
tkr, of Virginia. 

Mr. I'UGII read the following extract from 
Mr. Hunter's speech of February 24, 1854: 

••Tlieliill provides that the Legislatures of (fce*e Territories 
■hall have power tn legislate over all rightful subject! "i legisla- 
tion consistently with the Constitution. And, it' thej should 
a-sume powers which are thought tn lie inconsistent wiih the 
Constitution, the conrfs will decide that question wherever it 
mav he raised. There is a difference of opinion among the 
friends oj this measure as to the extent qj the limits which 
the Constitution imposes upon the Territorial Legislatures 
This bill proposes to Iran- these differences to the decision of 
the courts. To tliat tribunal I una willing to leave Ibis d vision. 
a.-, it was once before proposed to be lefl by the celebrated com 
promise of the Senator limn Delaware, (Mr. Clayton)— a 
measure which, according '" my understanding, was the best 
compromise, which was ottered upon this subject of slavery. I 
say, then, thai I am willinsto leave this momiI. upon which the 
friend* of the bill ureal difference to the decision of the courts " 
Jlppemliz to Congressional Globe, first session Thirty third 
Congress, cot 29, p. 384. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. There Mr. TIuntku states the 
object of the bill as explicitly and as clearly us 
it i- possible for any man holding my opinions to 
state it. The only point referred to the courts 
was the extent of the limitation imposed by the 
Constitution on the authority of (lie Territorial 
Legislature. 1 could cite more than half the 
body, perhaps, to this one point, but it would 
only be multiplying authority on a point that, is 
too clear to be disputed. 

I have been quoting thus far only senatorial 
authority as to the meaning of this net, I wish 
to show now that the people of the country — yea, 
the southern people — understood the Kansas- 
Nebraska bill at that time as I do now. and as 1 
explained it then. I will quote the resolutions 
of one sovereign State, the empire State of the 
South, a State that took the lead in 1850-51 in 
putting down the heresy o^ congressional inter 
vention for the protection of slavery. I will ask 
my friend from Ohio to read the resolutions of 
the Legislature' of Georgia approving of the prin- 
ciples contained in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, 
relative to the subject of slavery. 

Mr. PUGH read as follows: 

Resolution in rel iiiou lo this Territory of Nebraska. 

The State of Georgia, in sol' mn convention, having firmly 
fixed herself upon the principle of the compromise measures ol 
1850, relating to tic subject of sfaver'y in l he Territories of the 
United Stairs, as a final settlement of the agitation of that ques- 
tion, its withdrawal from the Halls of Congress and the politii al 
arena and its reference to the people of the Territories inter 
ested therein: and distinctly recognizing in those compromise 
measures the doctrine that it is not competent for Congress to 
impose any restrictions as to the existence of slavery among 
them, unon the citizens movins into and settling upon the Ter 
ritories of the Union, acquired, or to be hereafter acquired, but 
that the question whether slavery shall or shall not form a part 
of their domestic institutions, is for Ihem alone to determine for 
themselves; anil Iter present Executive halving reiterated and 
affirmed the same tixed policy in his inaugural address : 

llr it resolped hy the Smote and House of Representatives 
of the State of Georgia in General Assembly met. That the 
legislature of Georgia a-s the representatives of the people, 
speaking their will, and expressing their feelings, have had their 
confidence strengthened in the settled determination of the great 
body of the northern people, to carry out, in "ood faith, those 
principles in the practical application of them to the bills report- 
ed by Mr. Douglas, from the Committeeon Territories, in the 
United States Senate, at the present session, proposing the 
organization of a territorial government for the Territory of 
Nebraska 

And be it. further resolved. Thai our Senators in Congress 
6e. and they are hereby, instructed, and dut Representatives 
requested, to vote for and support those principles, and to use 



all proper means in their power for carrying them out. either as 
applied to the government of the Territory of Nebraska, or in 
any other bill for territorial government which may come before 
them. 

Resolved further. That his excellency the Governor be re- 
queste I lo transmit a copy of these resolutions to each of our 
Senators and Representatives in Congress. 

JOHN E. WARD. 
Speaker of the House of Representatives. 
JOHN D. ST ELL, 
I' resident of the Senate. 
In Senate, agreed to, February 17, Kit. 

HUGH M. MOORK. 
Secretary of the Sen at f, 
Tn House of Representatives, com lined in. February 17, 
1K.4. 

WILLIAM T WOr-FOKO. 
<■'..'. of House of Representatives, 
Approved, February I'D. 1- ~t 

HERSCUEL V. JOHNSON, 

(i ncrnor. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. These resolutions were adopt- 
ed by the State of Georgia pending the Kansas- 
Nebraska bill in the Senate when its provisions 
were well known, its features well understood; 
and the Legislature then stated, in the preamble, 
the principles which are embodied in the bill, 
and which were embodied in the compromise 
measures of 1850. They give a construction to 
the celebrated Georgia platform, which was the 
withdrawal of the question of slavery from the 
Halls of Congress and the political arena, and its 
reference to the people of the Territories inter- 
ested therein— almost the precise language of my 
report as chairman of the Committee on Territo- 
ries when the bill was introduced. Georgia ap- 
proved of the policy of withdrawing the question 
from the Halls of Congress, and referring it to the 
people of the Territories. She approved of that 
provision which distinctly recognized the com- 
promise measures of 1850, and provided that the 
question whether slavery should, or should not, 
form a part of their domestic institutions, was for 
them alone to determine for themselves. Georgia 
having stated that these principles were affirmed 
by the compromise measures of 1850 — that slue 
approves of these principles — instructs her Sen- 
ators to vote for the Kansas-Nebraska bill intro- 
duced by myself, as chairman of the Committee 
on Territories. It is undeniable that Georgia 
understood the Kansas-Nebraska bill as I under- 
stand it. She understood the compromise meas- 
ures of 1850 as I understand them. These Geor- 
gia resolutions are as good a platform as I want. 
I am willing to take the preamble and resolutions 
adopted by the State of Georgia in 1854, without 
the dotting of an i, or the crossing of a t, and de- 
clare them to be the Democratic platform. I hear 
men behind me say they are not I am. I will 
take the Georgia platform with its own interpre- 
tation, not mine. I could not use language to 
express my own opinions more clearly and une- 
quivocally than I find them standing on the 
statute-book of Georgia at this day as instructions 
to her Senators. 

The country then understood this measure as 
I now explain it; and I will show you that the 
House of Representatives, as well as the Senate, 
understood it in the same way. It will be recol- 
lected that Colonel Richardson, of Illinois, was 
chairman of the Committee on Territories, and, 
as such, reported the Kansas-Nebraska bill in the 



16 



House of Representatives. Be explained it then 

as I do now. The reputation that he mad.- dur- 
tag that session in the • :neae- 1 

ore, so commendi d hi 

that when the nextC i they pre- 

sented hi^ Dime as th mdidate for; 

Speaker, against the R< pul didate, Mr. 

Banks, of -Mi achusetts. Pendfng th . 
for Speaker, the southern Oppe 
charged Mr. Richardson with not b.-imj round 
oa the slavery question, because he beld to this 
odious doctrine of non-intervention, 01 
sovereignty, as polil • are in the habit 

of terming it. General Zollicoffer p 
questions f I i dates for -Speaker to an 

swer. These q read fr<>;ii the 

Clerk's table, and .Mr. 

other candidates, proceed I to a 1 will 

ask my friend to read the answer of Governor, 
Richard 

Mr. l'i'i rH r< ad, as follows: 

Mr. RlOHARDSOX. Tl. - not. in ni) 

opinion, carry the Terri- 

tories; tint it Bffor ! 
totiona of one - 

is as much entitled. In the common territory, to the pro- 
tection of hi< property, coder the Constitution, 
citizen of Illinois ; b enrlent npon tl 

of the territorial government lor lav - to protect their prop- 
erty, of whatever kind It may t>e. Thus It Will ' 
that though there maybe upon Lhit 
heorctically— im •< ii < ms fiw jndiclal decision— 

yei there is none, pr etlcally, ri ng tl • Wends of nnn- 
InterventloD ' mil i« to place 

the decision of the quest! 'ii in the baa ■ ho are 

nHwtdeenH Interested In Its sol 

of the Territory, who have made it their homo, and w boss 
interests are newt deeply Involved In the character of the 
institutions under n bicb they are to lit 
Globe, vol 83, j-urt 1, p. 222. 

Mr. DOUGLAS equently, but on the 

same day. Januan 12, L856, in r plj bo a 
tion by Mr. Bingham, Colon* 1 Richardson Bald : 

"I said in my remarks this morning, that, in m> opin- 
ion, the people of a Territory h; 

tabllsh or prohibit African slavery. I think that is an 
answer to the gentleman 'e 

That was the answer of Colonel Richardson 
■when a candidate for Speaker, and questi 
by southern a- well as northern men, a- to his 
opinions on this very question. 1 was nol here 
at the time. I was prostrate upon a rirjfc b 
Indiana, with very httle pi ever seeing 

the Capitol again, When Colonel Richard 
answer was read to me, I was I h'-ar 

that lie had given a clear and explicit explana- 
tion of the true meaning oi is-Neoraska 
bill, as we understood it. The Journals show 
that, upon this answer being given, the ii 
on the same day, proceeded l<> the one hundred 
and eighth ballot for Speaker, and 1 ash my friend 
from Ohio to read the names of the men \ 
for Mr. Richardson after this answer was made: 

Mr. PUGH read, as follows; 

u For 3fr. Tti&hardnon — Messrs. Aiken. Allen, Barclay, 
Barksdale, Bell, Hendley S. Bei nett, IS >e.ock, Bowie. 
Boyce, Branch, Burnett, Oadwatader, Carulhers, Caskie. 
Clingman, Howell Cobb, W. E. W. Cobb, Craige, David- 
eon, Denver, D >wdell, Edftiundson, Elliot, English. Faulk- 
ner, Florence. Thomas .1. 1). Fuller, G-node, Greenwood, 
Aagnstus Hall. Sampson W. Harris, Thomas L Harris, 
Herbert, Hickman, Houston, Jewett. George W. Jones, 
Keltt, Kelly. Kidwell, Letcher, Lumpkin, S. 8. Marshall, 
Maxwell, McMullin, McQueen, Smith Miller, Millson, 
Mordecai, Oliver, Orr, Tuck, Phelps, Powell, Quitman, 



I Ruftln, Rust, Sandidge, Savage, Samuel A. Smith, William 
Smith. Bteph - Talbott, Vail, Warner, Wat- 

kins. WlnalOW, I>:in'nl !'.. Wright, and John V. Wright" 
ttsional Otobe, vol. 84, |>art 1. ■ 

Mr. DOUGLAS. The conn try will not heai- 

distinguished names on that list 

i ni the habit, of regarding 

I r and confidence. Every southern 

[Democrat, without exception, as shown by»the 

'. his v.>te for ' rovemor Richard- 

. ter thai explanation of the Kan- 

If my memory serves i 

distinguished gentleman from South Carolina, 

and o present, bad refused to vote for 

Ricbat . 'lis explanation was made, 

and this explanatipn, declaring himself in favor 

I of no ion, in favor of the rights of the 

■ • do »s they pl< 

nbers from 
ilina and other southern States, that 
til voted for him on the next ballot (Laugh 
ter, and applause in bh< 
\V 1 1 

that day, you would find tl sanu gen- 

a man because he 

held the id * hicb were then 

Iron I am aboul as sound on this 

r Richards >n. He and I 

'!•■! ion of the act. 1 [a 

hi of the Territi mittee 

in om 1 1 in the other; aid less than 

on affirmed, either that you ap- 

pt-ovi d of Richa ' ion, or that hi* 

to him. Who has changed since thai timet I 
it I, who dou avi w the principles 1 did then; or 

n bo now denounce me for hold;' 
opini h< v then - motion by 

their votes! I • tea. If 

they have honestly changed their opinions Bines 
time, they Bhould frankly avow the change. 
No man should cherish such a pri nsist- 

- to cling to error one moment after be is 
convinoed of il ; but a man, whenever be cl 
his opinions*, ought to avow it, and give the 
for the change, so as to remove the - 
from our eyes also. If I can forgive all I 
honor for having changed tbeii 

positio ing too much of therm to forgive 

me for my Ii lelity to principles of action to which 
and I were solemnly committed within -so 
a period I 
But, Mr. Pi. si lent, I want to add a little more 
authority on this point. It will be remembered 
that iii 1848 Alabama took the l< ad at bhe Ualti- 
■onvention in asserting the doctrine of con- 
mal intervention in the Territories. It will 
be remembered thai in Is.'m; she took the lead in 
demanding of the Cincinnati convention, as an 
ultimatum, the repudiation of the doctrine of 
I intervention, and the adoption in its place of the 
doctrine of non-intervention. The Alabama Slate 
I convention which appointed delegates to Cincin- 
nati in 1856, happened to be in session when the 
contest for Speaker took place between Colonel 
Richardson and Mr. Bants. The Democracy of 
Alabama were looking to Washington for the re- 
sult of that contest with intense anxiety, Theie 
i stood the gallant Richardson, the author of thu 



17 



Kansas-Nebrasba bill so for as the House was 
concerned, the nominee of liis party, proclaiming 
to the world in bold language its true meaning"; 
and every Democrat in Alabama heartily sympa- 
thized with him, and hoped that Richardson, the | 
defender of sonthern rights, might be elected 
ar. The Slate convention, then in session, 
representing the Democracy of Alabama, felt so 
deeply upon this subject, that they deemed it 
their duty to go out of the usual routine, and 
pass a resolution of approval. I ask my friend 
to read that resolution. 

Mr. PUGH read, as follows: 

" Resolved, Thnt the conrsp pursued !>v the gallant metf of 
the South ami North, 

he eleel of Mr Richard 

»on as Speaker, receives oir hearty approval They hai 

wisely i i hoi ■•" the fanatical ma 

jority 10 force a Fi ic Soil n enni7.ati< n upon them; that in | 

their lian la we can safel 

trao prib ive nationality, with the co 

that I hey will n ivei abari Ion them in any trial, c \fn amidst the 

oonfusioa and tenors of disorganization 

Mr, DOUGLAS. Mr. Pre ve only to 

say upon th's p >int thai it seems the Alt 
State convection, in 1856, did not regard Colo- 
nel Richardson's construction of the Kansa 

, | i monstrous a beresy as to dis- 

qualify every man for office who held bis 
ions. o from the fact that they indorsed 

the gallant Richardson and the faithful southern- 
ers who voted for him. This inference is con- 
firmed by the fact that the same convention 
instructed their delegates to the Cincinnati con- 
vention to insist upon the express recognition of 
the doctrine of non-intervention by Con 
with slavery in the Territories as the onl 
dition upon which Alabama would consent to be 
represented at Cincinnati Tuis was the ultima- 
tum of the Alabama Democracy in L856. I ask 
ray friend from Ohio to read that part of the 
resolutions 

Mr. PUGH read, as follows: 

" {5. That it is expedient that we itedinthe 

Democratic national convention, upou such conditions as are 
in at 

"9. That the delejra'e.? to the Democratic national eonven- 
tion, to nominate a President and V ' hereby 

expressly insl I thai the said convention >hall a>loi«t 

aplatfo the basis of a national organization, 

prior to the nomination of candidates, unequivocal!) a; 
in substance, the following propositions: I. The recognition 
and approval of the principles ot non intervention by ( 
npon the subject ofslaverj in the Territories. ■-. Thai no 
tion or prohibition of slavery, in any Territory, shall h 
be made by any acl of Congi ss. 3. That no 
refused admission into the Union because of the existence of 
slavery therein. 4. The faithful execution and maintenance 
of the fugitive slave law. 

" 10. That if said national convention shall refuse to a<lo;it 
the propositions embraced in the preceding resolution, our 
delegates to said convention ar.' hereby positively instructed to 
withdraw therefrom." 

Mr. DOUGLAS. There is some very sound 
and wholesome doctrine contained in these 'in- 
structions. The Alabama delegates were to de- 
mand that the platform be made first, and that 
the platform should expressly affirm the doctrine 
of non-intervention. The Cincinnati convention 
acceded to the demands of the Alabama Democ- 
racy. I indorsed those propositions; I am will- 
ing' to abide by them now. They are a fair ex- 
position of the Kansas- Nebraska bill. They are 
identical with the Cincinnati platform. The 



Charleston convention" indorsed those identical 
propositions, and Alabama seceded because the 
.ion did bo] Alabama went into the 1 Cin- 
cinnati convention demanding non intervention 
as the condition <>n which she would remain. 
She got it. she went into the Charleston con- 
vention demanding the reverse of non-interven- 
tion as the only condition on which she would 
remain. She did not get it, and she went out. 
Alabama led th ■ bolt at Charleston solely for 
the re. the majority of the convention 

adopted the Alabama ultimatum of 18561 I re- 
bhe right of the Democracy of Alabama 
D ' a their opinions just as often as they 
Very few men live who have not changed 
many opinions. Men who have more regard for 
truth than will change whenever con- 

vinced of their error. B ei ice 1 do not condemn 
Alabama for bolting now for the very reason that 
; in the Cincinnati conven- 
tion in 1856; but it is not to be expected that 
we who accepted her ultimatum then, and have 
ever since ol in good faith, should be 

satisfied to be lenounced as enemies to the 
South, for holding fast to the same principles 
which she then proclaimed. 

! r p at, thai I am willing now to stand by 
■ terms and conditions that Alabama pre- 
scribed as her ultimatum in 1856 I must do this 
I emocracy of Alabama: 1 do not 

believe the Democracy of that state indorse or 
approve of this attempt to break up the Demo- 
cratic party of the Union because the party 
would not change the platform. 1 believe the 
: as much attached to 
the principles of the Democratic party, as they 
understood them themselves and proclaimed 
i them to the world, as they were in 1856. I do 
\ notb> Alabama will follow Mr. Yancey 

now in his mad scheme to break up the Demo- 
cratic party in quest of Congressional interven- 
tion any more than she did in 1848, when he 
ipted the same thing. 
At this point, the honorable Senator yielded 
to a motion to adjourn. 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 1860. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I feel that it 
to the Senate to .express my sincere thanks 
for the courtesy they extended to me yesterday, 
knoning the remainder.of, my remarks until 
to da}', when it was evident that I was physically 
exhausted. I fear that I shall be under the ne- 
cessity of claiming the indulgence of the body 
also for the desultory manner in which I shall 
present my views to day, and possibly for my in- 
ability to say all that 1 would like to have pre- 
sented to the Senate on this question. A recur- 
rence of a severe disease of the throat, which I 
contracted some years ago, in discussions in the 
open air in vindication of the principle of non- 
intervention against the assaults of the Republi- 
can party, has severe!}* affected my voice and 
impaired my physical strength. However, I will 
proceed as 'best I may, to conclude what I have 
to say upon the question. 

In'the first place, I will answer some objections 



18 



that have been made to my course, and some of 
the evidence* that have Iteeo adduced to convict 
me of having given a wrong construction to the 
Kansas-Nebraska bill. Tlie firs! one is the action 
of the Senate, my own vote included, upon what 
was known as the < lhase amendment to the Ivan 
sas- Nebraska aet, at the time of its passage. It 
will be recollected that after the Senate had 
adopted the provision in the fourteenth section 
of the bill, which declared the true intent and 
meaning of the acl to be "not to legislate slavery 
into any State or Territory, nor to exclude it 
therefrom, but to leave the people thereof per 
fectly free to form and regulate their domestic 
institutions in their own way, Bubjecl only lo the 
Constitution of the United states," Mr. Chase, of 
Ohio, offered the following additional amendment, 
to insert the words: 

" Under which tin* |w>nple or the Territory, through their 
appropriate representatives, may, if they tee fit, prohibit ihe 
existence of slavery therein " 

It wi.'l be observed that that amendment was 

precisely the same in its legal effect as the one 
which Mr. Chase submitted to the compromise 
measures of 1850, by which the people of a Ter 
ritory should have the power to prohibit slavery 
but not the power to introduce and protect it. j 
The amendment which he offered to the Kai 
Nebraska hill was intended to have precisely the 
same effect, and was the counterpart of the propo- 
sition of the Senator from Mis issippi, offered as 
an amendment to the compromise measures of 
1850, that the Territorial Legislature should 
have the power to protect, but not to exclude or i 
prohibit slavery. When this amendment was' 
offered by Mr. Chase it stood in the position of 
an amendment to an amendment. The n 
shows that Mr. Pratt, of Maryland, appealed to 
Governor Chase to accept an additional amend- 
ment, by inserting the words "or introduce" 
after the word "prohibit," so that it would read 
that the people of a Territory might prohibit or 
introduce slavery. Governor Chase's amendment 
being an amendnmet to an amendment, the propo- 
sition of Mr. Pratt was out of order. Mr. Si:w- 
ard, of New York, made the point of order, 
which was sustained by the Chair, and conse- 
quently Governor Chase having refused to a scepl 
the words "or introduce," it was not in order to 
move the amendment. I will have an extract 
read from the speech of Governor Pratt, of 
Maryland, on that occasion, showing what was 
the understanding at the time of the object of 
Mr. Chase's amendment. 

Mr. PUGII read, as follows: 

" Mr. Pratt >aid : Mr. President, the principle which Ihe 
Senator from < Moo adopt* a; the principle of his amendment is, 
that the question shall he left entirely and exclusively lo the 
people, whether they will prohibit slavery or not. Now, for 
the purpose of testing the sincerity of the Senator, ami lor the 
purpose of deducing the principle ol his amendment con. :\ . 
I propose to am -nd it by inserting after the word ' prohibit ' the 
words ' or introduce;' so that, it my amendment be adopted, 
and the amendment of the .Senator from Ohio, as so amended, 
be introduced as a part, of the bill, the principle which he says 
he desires to have letted will be inserted in the bill — that the 
people of the Territories shall have power to prohibit or intro 
duce slavery as they may see proper. I suppose the question 
will he taken on the amendment which I offer to the amend 
ment." 

Mr. DOUGLAS. As I remarked, Mr. Seward, 
of New York, objected to Governor Pratt's amend- 



ment to insert the words "or introduce," by which 
he was deprived of the opportunity of having a 
rote on it; and Governor Chase having refused 

to accept that amendment, it left the Senate to 
vote simply on the question whether they would 
so amend the bill as to give the power to pro- 
hibit without the power to introduce and protect 

slavery. That amendment was rejected because 

the words offered by Governor Pratt were not ac- 
cepted. And yet, sir. in the face of these facts, 
my vote against this Chase amendment has bet n 
cited a thai I myself was unwilling to 

allow the people to aet either for or against 
slavery in the Territories. The debate on this 
dmeot shows clearly and conclusively that 
the understanding of the fj-araers of the bill was, 

that We Were to allow the people to act as they 

pldased, so that thej did not violate the Consti- 
tution, linel Blaveryaa they choose; and 
if tit sir territorial enactments were inconsistent 
with the Constitution, the coi rts were to apply 
the remedy, but not Congress. The record shows 
that Mr. Sh rue appealed to 
Governor Chase to aocepl of the amendment of 
Mr. Pratt. Mr. Shields Baid: 

" If the honorable Senator will permit, I will suggest to him, 
if he wishes to rest that proposition lo pot the convene a- '«<;- 

vested by the I orable Senator from Maryland, and then it 

will be a fair proposition. Let 'he Senatoi from Ohio accept 
ml ment of Ihe Senator from Maryland lor the purpose 
of testing the question.'' 

I will ask my friend from Ohio also to read 
what Mr. Senator I North Carolina, then 

said in respect to this Chase amendment. 

Mr. PUGB read as follows: 

"Mr, ' have understood, I find, correctly, th« 

purport of the offered by thi Senator 

i the nmendmenl and the effect of 

the amendment, if adopted by l lie Sena e, and standing as u 

does, are clear and obvious, '/'la ijfirt of <h mm ii I mint, and 

■■■ mr mi, I subvert 'he 

hi introduced into the bill upon the motion of 

Mr DtUOLAS I 

[s not that clear T i- it Btands, ia on unre 

ertnee in the territorial authori 

ties, or the p* - lo determine upon the question 

of slavery; and, therefoie, b n* as well at by the 

meaning and legal operations ol thai amendment, fof 

Mr Pratt,] TO KNABLI THKM KITHKR TO KXCLI Dl "K TO 
INTRODUCE, oil. TO ALLOW SLAVERY. If, therefore, the 
amendment proposed by the Senator iron Ohio were appended 
to the bill in the connection in which he introduces it, the ne- 
cessary and inevitable effect of il would be to control ami limit 
i unirc uzhirh the Senate hasjiisl put >>nu tin bill, and 
to give it this construction ; that though Congress leaves them 
to regulate their own domestic institutions as ih ■> please, yet, 
in regard to the subject matter of slavery, llu power is confined 
to the exclusion or p it I ~.u this is both the 

legal effect ami the mahifesl design of the amendment. The 
legal etti upon the statem nt ; the design is obvious 

upon the refusal of the gentleman to incorporate in hi* amend- 
ment what was unggeste I by my honorable friend from Mary- 
laud, the propriety and fairness of which were instantly seen by 
my friend from Illinois ( Mr. Shield*. J 
********* 

" I have no hesitation, therefore, in saying that I shall vote 
against the amendment of the Senator from Ohio The clause 
as it stands is ample. It submits the whole authority to the 
Territory to determine for itself That, in my judgment, is the 
place where it ought to be put. If the people of these Territories 
choose in exclude slavery, so far froth considering it a wrong 
dour to me. or to m>i constituents, I shall not complain of it. 
It ts their own business." 

Mr. DOUGLAS. I now ask that the vote on 

rejecting the Chase amendment, for the reasons 
assigned in the debate which I have quoted, may 
be read. 



19 



Mr. 1'CGII read as follows: 

'• The question being taken by veas and nays.on the amend- 
ment of Mr. Ohase, it i suited— yeas 10, nay- -i 1 '. 

" Yeas — Messrs. Chase, Dodge of Wisconsin, Fessenden, 
Fish. Foote. Hamlin, Seward, Smith, Sumner, and Wad< — 10. 

" Nayf — Messrs. Adams, Atchison. Badger, Be.'l, Benja- 
min, Brodhead, Brown. Butler, Clav. Clayton, Dawson. Dixon. 
Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Evans, Fi'zpatrick, Gwin, ElonslQn, 
Hunter, Johnson. Jon of Iowa, .'ones of Tenne see Mason, 
JMoiton, No riv Pettit, Pratt Rusk Sebastian, Shields, Slidell. 
Stuart, Toucey, Wal and Williams— 36\ 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Thus il will be seen, from 
the record, that the Chase amendment was re 
jected because it did not leave the people fn B to 
act on the subject, either for or against slav< ry, 
to introduce, protect, or prohibit, as they saw 
proper; and that .these reasons were assigned at 
the time by southern men — Pratt of Maryland, 
Badger of North Carolina, and others — for voting 
against the Chase amendment, [f those whoctted 
this amendment, and my votes upon it, against 
me, had read the debate as well as the amend- 
ment itself, they would have found that it proved 
precisely the reverse of that fot which it was 
cited against me. 

The amendment offered by my Colleague, in 
1856, to the Toombs bill, and my vote againet it, 
have been cited as evidence thirt it was not the 
intention or the understanding of any of u j , when 
the Kansas-Nebraska bill passed, to allow tin- 
people to aet on this quesiion. I will ask that 
the Trumbull amendment be also read. The bill 
to which that amendment was offered was a bill 
known as the Toombs bill, to authorize the peo- 
ple of Kansas to form a constitution and come 
into the Union as a State, It was not offered as 
an amendment to a territorial bill, but to a State 
bill; and, as an amendment to a State bill; was 
fixing a construction to a territorial bill which 
•'was to cease to operate by the admission of a 
State under the bill which we were then passing. 

Mr. PUGH read as follows: 

" ,'lnd be it -further enacted. That the provision in 
' to organize the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska,' which 
declares it to be ' the true- i-;t»-nt and meaning of said acl not to 
legislate slavery into any Territory or State, or to es 
therefrom; bnl to leave the o form 

and< regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, sub 
jeet only to the Constil ution of the United States ' teas inU n I 
ed to and does confer upon or leave to the people of the Tt rri 
tnry of Kinsas full power at any time through its Ten 
Legislature to exclude slavery from said Territory, or to 
recognize or regulate it tharein."' 

Mr. DOU( i LAS. Thus it will be seen that the 
amendment of 'my colleague was lo declare, in 

tbe bill for the admission of a State into the 
Union, that it was the intent of the aet of Con- 
gress organizing that. Territory, to allow the 
people of the Territory either to introduce or ex 
elude slavery, as they saw proper. This amend- 
ment was* rejected by the Senate on two grounds 
One was, that it was irrelevant to append it to a 
State bill, when it was declaring the intent of a 
territorial bill. The other ground was, that it 
was an act of usurpation for the Congress of the 
United States to attempt to adjudicate the mean- 
ing of that tei ritorial bill ; that the question what 
its true intent and meaning was after it passed, 
belonged to the courts, and not to the Senate or 
House of Representatives; and the attempt of 
Congress thus to expound it was an act of usur- 
pation. To prove that such was the case, I will 



ask to have read brief extracts from various 
speeches which I have collected, showing tbe 
grounds on which the Trumbull amendment was 
opposed. I will remark, that no man intimated, 
pending that debate, that the Trumbull amend- 
ment did not contain the true meaning of the 
bill; but they said, we will net by act of Con- 
gress attempt to expound a territorial act. 

Mi-. PUGH read as follows: 

'■ Mr <"\ss said : Now. in res(i"et to myself. I suppose the 
Senate knows clearly my views I believe the original act {rave 
the Territorial Legislature of Kansas full power to exclude or 
allow slavery" * * * * "This being 

my vipw. I shall vole against (he amendment. 

'Mr Doi'OLAS said: The reading of the amendment io- 

mj mind to the belief that, in its legal effect, it is pre- 

• with ihe original act, and almost in the words 

of tiia' aet llcmv. I should have no hesitancy in voting for 

it. except that it is putting on this bill a matter that does not 

belong to it." ****** 

"Mr. BlGLER said: Now. sir. 1 am nut prepared to say 
whal the intention oftlie Congress of Id54 was, because I was 
no' a member of that Congress I will not vole on this amend- 
ment, because I should not know that, my vote was expressing 
the truth I agree, too, with fit m Michigan [Mr. 

Cass] and the Senator; from [llinois [Mr. Douglas, J that this 
is substantially the law as it now e\i-K." 

" .Mr. Toi ' iv said : Now. I object to this amendment as 
: worse than that, as jiviiiL' "rounds for 

misrepresentation. I: where it is left 

in tie- Kansas Nebraska bill " * * * * 

" .Mr B •. ,'Cii- -aid : 1 have n-> objection to the amendment 

proposed by the honorable Senator from lllinoi ,[Mr. Truh- 

iii it | whirl) to me would be perfectly sufficient, independent 

of any o'her ; nntl that is, it is nothing more or /is< than on 

' to gire a judicial exposition by the Congress of tke 

itntfis to the Constitution ; and I hold that tlicy havt 

no right to usurp judicial power. 1 ' 

Mr. DOUGLAS. I will ask the reading of the 
vote o;i the reasons assigned in debate for giving 
the vote. 

Mr. PU.GH read as follows: 

" The question being taken by yeas and nnvs on the amend- 
ment, resulted — yea* II, nays 34, as fi 

'• Y BAH— Messrs. All.n. Bell of New Hampshire, Collamer, 
len, Foote, Foster, Hf.le, Seward, Trumbull, 
and Wade— II. 

" Nay< — Messrs. Adams, Bayard, Benjamin, Biggs, I'igler, 
Bright, Brodhead. Brown. Cass, Clay, Crittenden, Dodge, 
Douglas Evans Fit z pa trick, Geyeri Hunter. Iverson, Johnson, 
Jones of Iowa, Mallory Mason, Pratt, Pu'gh Reiti, Sebastian, 
Stuart, Tlioninson of Kentucky, Toombs, Toucey, 
Weller, Wright, and Vulee— 34. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Thus it appears from the 
record that all who voted for the Trumbull amend- 
ment declared by their votes that it was the true 
intent and meaning of the act. not to legislate 
slavery into a Territory or out of it, but to leave 
the people thereof to do as they pleased, subject 
I to the Constitution. It appears from the debates, 
however, that all who voted against it assigned 
as a reason for tbe negative vote either that it was 
irrelevant, or that it was a usurpation of judicial 
power; but no one of them intimated or pretended 
it was not a true explanation of the bill. Mr. 
Bayard said in his remarks that — 

" It is nithin:: more or less than an attempt to give a jndi- 
iiial exposition, by the Congress of the United States, to the 
Constitution ; and I hold that they have no right to usurp ju- 
dicial power." 

Now what act was it that was to be a usurpa- 
tion of judicial power ? It was the proposition of 
Congress to declare that, under the Nebraska bill, 
and the Constitution of the United States, the 
people of the Territory had the power to intro- 
duce or exclude slavery. Mr. Bayard said that 
was an act of usurpation, an act beyond the con- 



20 



stitutional authority of the Senate; and yet we 
have resolutions now under debate, by which the 
Senate is called upon to adjudicate that identical 
question. The resolutions on your table provide 
that neither Congress nor a Territorial Legisla- 
ture have a right to exclude slavery from a ter- 
ritory. That is the substance of them. The 
object of these resolutions is to ask the Senate to 
decide this very judicial question, which Mr. 
Bayaud, in 1856, denounced as beyond your con 
stitutional authority to do. lie denounced il as 
an act of attempted usurpation, and every one of 
you stood here silent, and heard Mr. Bayard 
that denunciation to the proposition to expound 
the meaning of the Constitution on this question 
by an act of the Senate. You are now called 
upon by these resolutions to perform that very 
act of usurpation, and decide that very judicial 
question which, by the Kansas-Nebraska act, was 
to be referred to the courts and banished from 
Congress forever ; and which you pledged your- 
selves by that act never to decide in Congress. 
There is the record. 1 hold you to your pledges 
that you will leave this question to the courts, 
where the Constitution leaves it, where vou 
agreed to leave it, and banish it from the Halls 
of Congress, as you agreed to banish it, forever. 

The Senator from Virginia. (Mr. Hunter,) it 
will be remembered, in the extract that I read 
yesterday, declared that the understanding of the 
Nebraska bill was that one point was referred to 
courts, and that was the exteni of the limitations 
of the Constitution on the authority of a Terri- 
torial Legislature. That was the point, the only 
point that was agreed to b* left to the courts. 
The Senator from Virginia not only made that 
speech in 1854 on the Nebraska bill when it was 
pending, but last year, when a debate arose be 
tween the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Brown) 
and myself, on the 23d of February, the Senator 
from Virginia arose and made an explanation, and 
quoted that very extract as a true exposition of 
the meaning of the bill, and reaffirmed it as his 
existing sentiments. Now the Senate is called 
upon, in violation of the meaning and pledges of 
the Nebraska act, as defined by the Senator from 
Virginia, to decide that very- question by resolu- 
tions of the Senate, which was to be referred to 
the courts and banished from Congress forever. 
I submit whether this is carrying out the true in- 
tent and meaning of that act. I submit whether 
this is banishing the subject from the Halls of 
Congress; whether it is referring it to the people 
immediately interested in it, subject to the limita- 
tions of the Constitution, and leaving the court 
to ascertain the extent of those limitations. 

In the debate growing out of this Toombs bill, 
my colleague put the question to me after it had 
been answered over and over again in previous 
speeches, whether or not aTerritorial Legislature 
had the power to exclude slavery. He had heard 
my opinion on that question over and over again. 
I did not choose to answer a question that had 
been so often responded to, but referred him to 
the judiciary to ascertain whether the power ex- 
isted. I believe the power existed; others be- 
lieved otherwise; we agreed to differ ; we agreed 
to refer it to the judiciary ; we agreed to abide by 



their decision ; and I, true to my agreement, 
I referred my colleague to the courts to find out 
whether the power existed or not. The fact that 
i I referred him to the courts has been cited as evi- 
dence thai I did not think individually that the 
power existed in aTerritorial Legislature. After 
the evidences I produced yesterday, and the de- 
I bate just, read upon the Trumbull amendment, 
| no man who was an actor in those scenes has an 
I excuse to be at a loss as to what niv opinion was. 
But it was not my opinion that was to govern; it 
was the opinion of the court on the question arising 
under a territorial law after the territory should 
have passed a law upon the subject. Bear in 
mind that the report introducing the bill was that 
these questions touching the right of property in 
slaves were referred to the local courts, to the 
territorial courts, with a right of appeal to the 
Supreme Court of the United Staies. When that 
dase shall arise, and the court shall pronounce its 
judgment, it will be binding on me, on you, sir, 
and on every good citizen. It must be carried 
out in good faith; ami all the power of this Gov- 
ernment — the Army, the Navy, and the militia — 
all that we have — must be exerted to carry the 
decision into effect in good faith, if there be resist- 
ance. Do not bring the question back here for 
Congress to review the decision of the court, nor 
fir Congress to explain the decision of the court 
The court is competent to construe its own deci- 
sions, and issue its own decrees to carry its deci- 
sions into effect. 

We are told that the court has already decided 
the question. If so, there is an end of the con- 
troversy. You agreed to abide by it; I did. If 
it bas decided it, let the decision go into effect; 
there is an end of it; what are we quarreling 
about? Will resolutions of the Senate give any 
additional authority to the decision of the Su- 
preme Court of the United States? Does it need 
an indorsement by the Charleston convention to 
give it validity? If the decision is made, it is the 
law of the land, and we are all bound by it. If 
the decision is not made, then what right have 
you to pass resolutions here prejudging the ques- 
tion, with a view of influencing the views of the 
court? If there is a dispute as to the true inter- 
pretation and meaning of the decision of the court 
who can settle the true construction except the 
court itself, when it arises in another case? Can 
you determine by resolutions here what the de- 
cision of the court is, or what it ought to be, or 
what it will be? It belongs to that tribunal. The 
Constitution has wisely separated the political 
from the judicial department of the Government. 
The Constitution has wisely ma.de the courts a 
coordinate branch of the Government, as inde- 
pendent of us as we are of them. Sir, you have 
no right to instruct that court how they 6hall 
decide this question in dispute. You have no' 
right to define their decision for them. When 
that decision is made, they will issue the proper 
process for carrying it into effect; and the Exe- 
cutive is clothed with the Army, the Navy, and 
the militia, the whole power of the Government, 
to execute that decree. All 1 ask, therefore, of 
you is non-iutervention ; hands off. In the lan- 
guage of the Georgia resolutions, let the subject 



21 



be banished forever from the Halls of Congress 
or the political arena, and referred to the Terri- 
tories, with a right of appeal to the courts ; and 
there is an end to the controversy. 

Having shown conclusively what the under- 
standing of Congress was upon this question of 
the compromise measures of 1850, and the Kan- 
sas-Nebraska bill, I will proceed now to show 
how the President of the United Slates who 
signed the bill understood it. I will ask to have 
read an extract Irom the message of President 
Pierce of December, 1855. 

Mr. PUGH read, as follows: 

" The scope and effect of the language of repeal were not 
left in doubt. It was declared, in teims, to he the ' true intent 
and meaning of tit is act not lo legislate slavery into any Terri- 
tory or State, do' exclude it therefrom, hut to leave the people 
thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic iflsti- 
tntions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of 
the United States.' 

" The measure could not he withstood upon its merits alone. 
It was attacked with violence, on the false or delusive pretext 
that it constituted a breach of faith. Never was objection moie 
utterly destitute of substantial justification. When, before, 
was it imagined by sensible men, that a regulative or declarative 
statute, whether enacted ten or forty years ago, is irrepealable; 
that an act of Congress is above the Constitution ? If, indeed, 
there were in the facts any cause to impute had faith, it would 
attach to those only who have never ceased, lioin the time ol 
the enactment of the restrictive provision lo the present day, 
to denounce and condemn it; who have constant!) refused to 
complete it by needful supplementary legislation ; who have 
spared no exertion to deprive it of moral force; who have 
themselves, again and again, attempted its repeal. by the enact- 
ment of incompatible provisions; and who, by the inevita- 
ble reactionary effect of thetr own violence on - .he subject, 
awakened the country lo perception of the true constitutional 
principle of leaving the matter involved to the discretion oi the 
people of 'iie respective existing or ENCIPTBNT States " 

" It is not pretented that this principle, or any other, pre- 
cludes the possibility of evils in practice, disturbed ps political 
action is liable to be by human passions. No form of govern- 
ment is exempt from inconveniences; but in this case they are 
the result of the abuse, and not of the. legitimate exeici.-e, of 
the powers reset ved or conferred in the organization of a Teiri- 
tory. They are not to be charged to the great principle of pap- 
ular sovereignty; on the contrary, they disappear before the 
intelligence and patriotism of the people, exerting through the 
ballot box their peaceful and silent but irresistible power." 

Mr. DOUGLAS. There you willfind that Presi- 
dent Pierce, who signed the Kansas-Nebraska 
act, speaks of it as adopting the great principle of 
"popular sovereignty" in the States, and also in 
the "incipient" States. What did he mean by 
the word "incipient" States? Not the States 
that were then in the Union. He unquestionably 
referred to the Territories as "incipient States," 
and, as such, were entitled to the benefits of the 
principles of self-government in respect to their 
domestic concerns. Hence you find the word 
" incipient" States, and the words " popular sov- 
«reignty," as embracing the rights of the people 
in those incipient States, or Territories, as we are 
in the habit of designating them. 

Here I must be permitted to comment upon a 
remark of the Senator from Mississippi, in his 
arraignment of this doctrine of non-intervention, 
which he chose to call squatter sovereignty. He 
said that this doctrine had its first trial on the 
plains of Kansas; that it bore its first fruits on 
the plains of Kansas; and he described its le- 
gitimate fruits as resulting in anarchy, violence, 
bloodshed, and every imaginable evil. President 
Pierce, in this message, says that those acts were 
abuses of the principle of popular sovereignty, 
in violation of the principle of the act; and that 



the principle itself is by no means responsible 
for those abuses. I answer that allegation of the 
Senator Irom Mississippi by the authority of his 
own chief, the President of the United States, 
under whom he held the high and distinguished 
office of Secretary of War. Nor is it improper 
here for me to express my amazement that the 
Senator from Mississippi would cite the abuses, 
the acts of violence, and of fraud, that occurred 
in violation of this principle under the Adminis- 
tration of which he was a ruling spirit, as evi- 
dences that the principle that brought that Ad- 
ministration into existence was a vicious and dan- 
gerous principle. 1 had supposed that the Sena- 
tor from Mississippi had given in his adhesion to 
this doctrine of non-intervention. I had sup- 
posed that he looked with pleasure upon the pas- 
sage of the Kansas-Nebraska act. 1 had sup- 
posed that he considered that as a great measure 
of relief to the southern States of this Union, 
and that he would have been the first to defend 
it, as in duty hound, having held office under the 
Administration that glories in the passage of the 
act. Now we find he takes pleasure in citing 
those very abuses in justification of his course 
] when he fought the principle, and as a verifica- 
j tiou of what lie told us before the southern States 
I agreed to acquiesce in the principle. I was not 
| prepared to hear this from the gentleman from 
Mississippi. 

Mr. DAVIS. You do not pretend to quote it? 
Mr. DOUGLAS. 1 do not pretend to quote 
the language. 1 pretend only to say that, in sub- 
I stance, he did declare that this principle had its 
first trial on the plains of Kansas, and bore its 
first fruits upon the plains of Kansas; that it was 
accompanied with unmitigated and untold evils, 
and produced all sorts of mischief; and the in- 
ference was that these results justified him in his 
original opposition to the principle. 

1 now pass to the next chapter in the history 
of this principle of non-intervention, which you 
will find in the proceedings of the national con- 
vention, held at Cincinnati, in 1856. You all 
remember that Alabama sent her delegates to 
Cincinnati, demanding that the usages of the 
party should be reversed, and that a platform 
should be first, made, and then furnishing the ul- 
timatum which, if not acceded to, must be the 
cause for an instant withdrawal of the Alabama 
delegates from that convention. That ultimatum 
was that the convention, in its platform, should 
recognize the principle of non intervention by 
Congress with slavery in the Territories. The 
convention yielded to the Alabama ultimatum. 
The convention incorporated that principle into 
the platform in language so explicit that no one 
can misunderstand it. I ask to have so much of 
the Cincinnati platform read as announced this 
doctriue of non-intervention. 
Mr. PUGH read, as follows: 



" The American Democracy recognize and adopt the prin- 
ciples contained in the organic laws establishing the Territories 
of Kansas and Nebraska, as embodying the only sound and 
safe solution of the ' slavery question,' upon which the great 
national idea of the people of this whole country can repose in 
its determined conservatism of the Union— non intkrfkr- 

RNtCK BY CONGRESS WITH SLAVKRY IN THE Sl'ATK AND 
TERRITORY, OR IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.. 



22 



"Tliit this was rha lia-U of (lie cool promise of 18S0, con 
firm c I • Democratic an il \Vhis |iarties in nar-ona! 

convention, ratified by i'ie people in the election of ' 
Kghtt\ ap|>lieil to - ition of Territories in l--"it. 

''That h>. the uniform application of this Democrat 
eiple lothc organization of Tenirories. and to the admission of 
ir withonl domestic slavery, as the) naj 
I intact— 
•heorig | nerl inviolate— 

and the pe , inftnsion of this Union insured lo it» 

inmost i . peace and harmon ■ 

future State that may be consti'Ol 
lican form of poverhmi nt." 

Mr. DOUGLAS. There it will be found (hat 
the Democratic party affirmed, at Cincinnati, io 
language it to admit of any p 

misconstruction ihe 

by Congress with slavery in th - Terri- 

tories, and in the District of Columbia, I only 
call attention t< i far as relates to non- 

intervention in Ihet 

declared that th incipleofnon interven- 

tion wa m in ied by both parties at Baltimore, in 
1852; showing that the.D • tr.ty under- 

stood in i the convention which nomi- 

nated General Pierce — upon which nomination 
Genen —did affirm 

this doctrine of nonintervention. 
that I _ and Democratic) had 

affirmed th<> doctrine, Il declared, also, thai 
this prim i| • w is correctly applied in tb< 
sas-Nebraska bill; and that it. was th 
serva! i aloi i the peaci 

and perpetuity of t! 'lined. 

I wish i: . . i thai the plal - 

form of principles was declared at Cincinnati 
unanimous! 

evevy deh ate in the ! 

was unanimous in its vote in favor of the | 
pie. The me man in Mississippi 

protesting againsl it; no one man in Alabama 
protesting n ai ist it; no one man in South ( aro- 
lina protesting against it; none in Georgia; none 
in any southern State of this Union. Are we 
now to be told that a platform adopted by the 
unanimous vote of every delegation, from every 
State in the Union, in 1856, iseo unsound and so 
rotten four years after, as to justify the very 
States who . it then in breaking up the 

party, bee i ist upon adhering to it, now : 

But, sir, not only did the party unanimously 
affirm this doctrjne in lS5t'., but your cand 
nominated a that time accepted the nomination 
on that plat f orm, with a construction which bbi v 
then put upon it for themselves. I wffl now 
show you that they then put upon that pla 
the identical construction which I have ever 
placed upuii it. I ask to have read an extract 
from the letter of acceptance of Mr. Buchanan, 
on the 16th of June, 1856. 
Mr. PUGU read, as follows: 

"The agitation nn the question of domestic slavery has 
too lonjr distracted ami divided the people of this Union, 
and alienated their affections from each other. Tills agi- 
tation h.-is assumed many firms since its commencement, 
but it now seems to be directed chiefly to the Territories; 
and judging from its present character, I think we may 
safely anticipate that it is rapidly approaching; -a finality.' 
The recent legislation of Congress respecting domestic 
slavery, derived, as it has been.' from the original and pure 
fountain of legitimate political power, the will of the ma- 
jority, promises ere long to allay the dangerous excite- 
ment. This legislation is founded upon principles as an- 



cient as free government itself; and in accordance with 

them has simply declared that the people of a Territory, 

like those ol p State, shall decide tor themst Ives whether 

Shall nr shall not exist within their limits." 

Mr. DO! GLAS. Mr. Buchanan not only ae- 
d th. Cincinnati platform, but he was kind 
enough to bell the people of the United States 
what it meant, and that it mean! that the people 
territory, like those of a State, should de- 
lves whether slavery should or 
should not exist within their limits. There is 
nothing equivocal in this language. It. is Bquat- 
ite I roadest sense 1 , as the Sen- 
fi om Mississippi uses thai term. The people 
of a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide 
for themseh es whether slavery shall exist or not 
Mr. Buohai the people that slavery could 

not exist in a Territory unless > f ft 

i ; it should exist if they said so, 
Mr Buchanan was elected 
on that construction of the platform. I do not 
i-i. tint you shall now give it that construction. 
I only ask that you readopt the plat form, and 
itself. But Mr. Buchanan was 
ctly sound on that platform in 1856, with a 
ii identical with that which is now 
denounced as a heresy. The distinguished gem- 
m who was nominated arid elected Vice 
• 1 1 on the same ticket with Mr. Buchanan, 
rstood the platform io the Barne way that 
Mr. Buchanan did. After his nomination at CJn- 
innati, he returned to his home in Lexington, 
and his neighbors assembled, as might have been 
■ they had euch devotion to their 
1 fellow-citizen, and congratulated 
h - good fortune in receivi ig the noma- 
I Mr. Breckinridge, in reply to that 
atulation, made them a speech, which was 
bed at the time, from winch 1 will present 
Bhowing you how he understood the 
braska bill and the Cincinnati plat- 
form. 

Mr. IT Oil read as follow-: 

ling qnestion of domestic slavery, their 
position is clear. The whole power of (he Democratic orgatu- 
d to the following propositions : thai Congrats 
shall n.r on thin subject in the States, in the Terri- 

er in the District ol Columbia; that the people of each 
. ne ilre qnestion for themselves, rind l>« 
on a pon a tooting of perl Ij with 

'lie original States, wi| hoot discrimination on account of the 
rr prohibition of slavery." 

Mr. DOUGLAS. It seems that the Demo- 

v, in its whole organization, was 

proposition of non-intervention 

I referring the question to the 

I pie of the Territories. That is the way I 

understand it. I stand upon that platform now. 
I have great difficulty With my political friends 
in harmonizing upon platforms, and have ten- 
dered them various propositions, 1 have ten- 
dered them the Florida platform of 1817, and 
they would not take it; the Georgia platform of 
1854, and they would not take it; the Alabama 
ultimatum of 1856, and they would not take it. 
I tender them now Mr. Buchanan's letter of ac- 
ceptance in 1850; let it construe itself, and see 
tf*we cannot harmonize on that; or I tender Mr. 
Breckinridge's speech of acceptance in Lexing- 
ton, in 185G, and let it construe itself. I will not 



23 



dot an i or cross ft t. Gentlemen, will you take 
your own langiitige when you accepted and con- 
strued the platform? 1 am willing to be accom- 
modating. 1 do not insist on a platform from 
my speeches or my writings. I can pick one up 
all over the Senate, all over the country, from 
the speeches and writings of those who now ar- 
raign me as not being sound on the slavery ques- 
tion. (Applause in the galleries.) 

Even alter the election in 1856, the same prin- 
ciple was emphatically announced and affirmed; 
for in Mr. Buchanan's inaugural address, he de- 
clared : 

" VVp have recently passed through a presidential contest, in 
which th« passions of oar fellow citizens were excited to the 
highest degree by questions of deep and vital importance ; hut 
when the people proclaimed their will, the lean (test al once sub- 
sided, and all was calm. 

"The voice of the majority, speaking in the manner pre 
scribed by the Constitution, was heard, and instant submission 
followed. Our own country could alone have exhibited so 
grand and striking a spectacle of the capacity of man for self- 
government. 

" What a happy conception, then, was it for Congress to ap 
ply this simple rnl< — thai the will of the majontj shall govern — 
to the settlement of the question of domestic slavery in the 
Territories ! Congress is neither to ' legislate, slavery into any 
Territory or Slate, nor to exclude it therefrom ; but to leave Un- 
people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate then domestic 
institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution 
of the United States.' As' a natmal consequence, Congress 
has also prescribed that, when the Territory of Kansas shall be 
admitted as a Stale. ' it shall be received into the 1 'nion, with 
or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the 
time of their admission.' 

" A ilith renee of opinion has arisen in regard to the point ot 
time when the people of a Teiriiorv siiail decide this question 
for themselves. This is happily a matter of hut little practical 
importance." 

"What a happy conception," he Bays, "for 
Congress to apply this simple rule — that the will 
of a majority snail govern — to the settlement of 
the question of domestic slavery in the Territo- 
ries!" And, having applied it to the Territories, 
he says, that, "as a natural consequence, Con- 
gress has prescribed that when the Territory of 
Kansas shall be admitted as a State, it shall be 
received into the Union, with or without slavery, 
as their constitution may prescribe at the time of 
their admission !" So it seems that the right of 
the people to decide the slavery question at the 
time of admission was " a natural consequence" 
of the right of the people to decide the same 
question in their territorial condition. "The 
point of time" when the people of a Territory 
should decide the slavery question was deemed 
of "but little practical importance" by Mr. Bu- 
chanan. Yet, the very point uf time which was 
deemed of little practical importance, is now 
urged by his professed friends as sufficient for 
breaking up the Democratic party, and endan- 
gering the existence of the Union! 

I speak of these, things with entire respect. I 
do not bring them up for the purpose of condem- 
nation, or to place any man in a false position. 
If these gentlemen stand now where they did in 
1856, I am with them. If they do not, the ques- 
tion arises, who has changed? If they have 
changed, I do not complain of them for it. If 
they have had new light, if they have studied 
the subject more maturely, and have honestly 
come to the conclusion that they were then in 
error, they were bound as honest men to change. 
But if that be the case, I think I have the right 



to ask that they will furnish me with those argu- 
ments and reasons which induced the change in 
their minds, in order that I may correct my er- 
rors too, if indeed I am in error. 1 do not think 
there is any wisdom in the declaration that you 
have never changed an opinion. While 1 claim 
a very consistent record as a public man, I have 
often had occasion to say that ! have modified 
my opinions on many questions, and lake more 
pleasure in retracting an error than in persever- 
ing in it. All I ask is, if it be true that gentle- 
men have taken a step in advance or a step backs 
ward, that they will excuse me for not following 
them until they convince me that they ought to 
have taken that step. 

The country has been informed that 1 was re- 
moved from the post of chairman "f the Com- 
mittee on Territories, in 1858, because I uttered 
at Freeport, Illinois, the identical sentiments 
contained in the speeches ami letters of accep- 
tance of Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Breckinridge in 
1850. My heresy consisted in uttering the same 
sentiment then that the Senator from Mississippi 
bears testimony that I held and uttered in 1850; 
thai it lias been shown that I uttered, during the 
debate on the Kansas-Nebraska i ill, in 1854, an3 
in the debates of 1856, and which i was known 
to have held formany years. 1 do not complain 
of my removal from the committee. I acknowl- 
edge that, if it be true that my opinions were so 
heretical, that I did not fairly and honestly rep- 
resent the sentiments of the Senate <>n these 
great questions, it was right to displace me, and 
put a man there who did. 1 have no complaints 
to make. But wheu you displace me for that 
reason, do not charge that 1 have changed* when 
the fact is, that you have changed your own 
opinions. You did elect me chairman of that 
committee, in 18-17, with a knowledge of my 
opinions. You re-elected me each yeai for eleven 
years, by a unanimous vote in caucus, with a full 
knowledge of those opinions. At, the end of 
eleven years, you removed me for holding the 
identical opinions that I held when you had 
unanimously selected me. I do not complain of 
this; but Tdo think that fairness requires that 
the facts should have been stated truly; and you 
should have said, "We have got tired of this 
doctrine of non-intervention ; it, does not work 
to suit us; it has not yielded such practical 
fruits on the plains of Kansas as we anticipated; 
we have concluded to abandon it all, and go 
back to the old doctrine proclaimed by Yancey, 
at Baltimore, in 1848, and rejected by the con- 
vention by an almost unanimous vote." 

Now, sir, there is a difference of opinion, it 
seems, on this question, between me and a ma- 
jority of the Democratic Senators. 1 regret that 
difference. It would have afforded me sincere 
and genuine satisfaction if I could have continued 
to hold the same relations on this question that I 
did formerly. It was painful to me to find that 
this difference of opinion had grown up, and that 
they had determined to make this new test by 
which my orthodoxy was to be questioned, and I 
was to be branded as a heretic. While I regret- 
ted that determination on the part of some politi- 
cal friends here, I cannot recognize, and do not 



24 



now recognize, the right of acaueusof the Senate, 
or of the House, to prescribe new test? for the 
Democratic party. Senators are not, chosen For 
the purpose of making party platforms. That h 
no part of their duty. Under our political sys- 
tem there has grown up an organization known 
as a national convention, composed of deh 
elected fresh from the people, to assemble once in 
four years to establish a platform for the | 
and select its nominees. The Cincinnati platform 
was the only authoritative exposition of Demo- 
cratic faith until the Charleston convention i 
I have stood firmly, faithfully by the Cinch na'i 
platform, and have looked confidently to the 
Charleston convention to find it reaffirmed. Y< a 
gentlemen who differ with me, agreed to appe il 
to Charleston as the grand council tldde 

cide all differences of political opinion between 
you and me. I agreed, also, to look toll 
ton convention as the representative sof the party 
assembled from every State in t 1 • d af- 

ter great deliberation, three days' debate in com- 
mittee, and a very elaborate and able deb: I 
full convention, the party determined, by an ovi r- 
whelming majority, in favor of the readoption of 
the Cincinnati platform. 

I have told vou all the time durin ■• 
enee of these differences of opinion, thai I •■ 
favor of the Cincinnati platform without th< 
ting of an i, or the crossing of a t. Th 
ton convention affirmed the same plal form. 1 am 
no longer a heretic. I am no longer an outlaw 
from the Democratic party. I am no Ion 
rebel against the Democratic organization. 
Charleston convention repudiated this new 
contained in the Senate caucus resolutions, by a 
majority of t 'entyseven, and affirme 
cinnafi platform in lieu of it Then, solar, 
platform is concerned, I am sustained bj the party 

— the only authority on earth whi sh, a 

to Democratic usages, can determine the Demo- 
cratic creed. The question now is whether my 
friend from Mississippi will again acquiesce in 
the decisions of his party upon the platform 
which they have adopted, or is he going to r 
from the party, bolt its nominations, break it up, 
because the party has concluded not to eh 
from its position of 1856. Are my friends around 
me here going to desert the party because the 
party has not changed as suddenly as they have? 

The country has often been told that land my 
friends in Illinois were not acting in bar 
with the Democratic organization. We have said, 
in reply to .that accusation, " We will appeal to the 
rational convention at Charleston and ascertain 
who constitute the Democratic party in Illinois, 
whether it be the regular organization that sus- 
tains me, or the Federal officeholders that acted, 
with the Republicans, against me." The Federal 
officeholders sent their delegates to Charleston. 
The regular Democratic organization, known as 
the Douglas organization — the same organization 
that returned me to the Senate; the same organi- 
zation that beat the Republicans and the Federal 
officeholders combined in 1858 — sent their dele- 
gates to Charleston, aud the convention proceed- 
ed with great deliberation and impartiality aud 
integrity to decide between them, and decided, 



by a unanimous vote, that the Federal officehold- 
not belong to the Democratic 
—«(laughter) — rejected them by a unani- 
mous vote. So far. therefore, as these "national 
" of Illinois, who, in Order to carry out 
Democratic principles, sustained the Abolition 
oed, the party has unani- 
at Charleston, that" they do not 
j to the party. 
The it Charleston also, by a ma- 

jority of the whole electoral college, that I was 
of th i Democratic party of America 
y of the United States, giving 
me a majority of fifty votes over all the other 
candidates combined; and yet m\ Democracy is 
ioned (Laughter.) So far as I am indi- 
lly concerned, 1 want no further or higher 
i. I have arraigned r:o man. I have 
to proscribe no man for differing with 
me in opinion. I have nt. all times said "that I 
was willing to appeal tp th incil of the 

partj i iu national convention, to de- 

cide I of opinion. They have 

I cided in my favor on all points 
— the platform, the organization, and. least of all, 
the indivi lual. That is the leasl of all ; for my 
friends who know me best, know that I had no 
■ wish for the moraination; know 
r a seat in the Senate for six years to 
if I could have the nomination 
and be elected by acclamation ; and know that 
'"V na would have been presented at 

Char! pt for the attempt to proscribe 

too unsound to be the chairman 
f this body, where I have held 
' for so msny years without a suspicion rest- 
ing on ■ A fidelity. 

I was forced to allow my name' to go there in 
self-def ; • ; a id I will now say that had any 
gentleman, friend or foe, received a majority of 
thai convention over me, the lightning would 
have carried a message withdrawing my name 
from the convention. I have not lust enough 
for office to desire to be the nominee against the 
known wishes and first choice of a majority of 
my party. In 1852, the instant Franklin Pierce 
had a majority vote, the telegraph carried my 
ngratulating him as the choice of the 
party; and it was read in the convention before 
the vote was announced. In 1856, the instant 
Mr. Buchanan received a majority vote, the light- 
ning carried my message that James Buchanan, 
having received a majority of the votes .of the 
party, in my opinion, was entitled to the nomi- 
nation, and that I hoped my friends would give 
him the requisite two-thirds, and then make the 
vote unanimous. Sir, I would scorn to be the 
standard-bearer of my party when I was not the 
choice of the party. All the honors that a na- 
tional couvention can confer are embraced in the 
declaration that I am the first choice of the par- 
as their standard-bearer, repeated on fifty-seven 
ballots. I ask nothing more. The party will 
go on and do what its own interest and its own 
integrity may require. 

But, sir, I do rejoice that this good old Demo- 
cratic party, the only organization now left suffi- 
ciently national and conservative in its principles 



25 



and great in its numbers to preserve this Union, |j Legislatures, and statesmen. I have no time to enlarge, but to 
has determined to adhere to the great principle |j su fn7iLTe7 yours &e., 



of non-intervention by tlie Federal Government, 
with the domestic affairs of distant Territories 
wnd provinces. It is a pleasing duly to me to de- 
fend this glorious old party against those who 
would destroy it because the party will not 
change its platform to suit their purposes. The 
leadership at Charleston, in this attempt to di- 
vide and destroy the Democratic party, was in- 
trusted to appropriate hands. No man possessed 
the ability, or the courage, or the sincerity in his 
object, for such a mission, in a higher degree, 
than the gifted Yancey. lie has a right to fee! 
proud of his achievements at Charleston. In 
1848, at Baltimore, he proclaimed the same doc- 
trine, and failed to get a State to stand by him li 



VV. L. YANCEY. 
Mr. DOUGLAS. That letter, it is due to Mr. 
Yancey to state, was intended as a private letter 
to his friend, Mr. Slaughter, and was published 
without his authority. Having been republished 
and severely commented upon by the editor of 
the Richmond South, Mr. Yancey addressed a 
letter of explanation to Mr. Prtoe, in which he 
declared that it was a private letter, written in 
the freedom and carelessness of private confi- 
dence, and was subject to hostile criticism. 
Therefore, he proceeded to explain more fully 
what his views were upon the question. I have 
endeavored to obtain an entire and perfect copy 
of this letter to Mr. Peyor, without success. I 



find, however, a long extract, embodying proba- 
I bly the whole of its material parts, in the Na- 
tional Intelligencer of September 4, 1858, which, 
I have no doubt, gives a fair representation of 



P 

candidate, in 1856. But very soon he oarrte to 
the conclusion that this great Democratic party 
was not competent to preserve and maintain 
the rights of the South under the Constitution. 
He came to the conclusion that it was time to 
institute some other organization for the main- 
tenance of southern rights. That he was con- 
scientious and sincere in his views, I do not doubt ; 
but that they lead dil ; /, to a dis- 

solution of the Union, and the formation of a 
southern confederacy, if carried out, I think is 
beyond all question. Doubtless many Senators 
have seen the letter of Mr. Yancey to Mr. Slaugh- 
ter, of the date of Juue 15, 185S, upon the sub- 
ject Of "r-KKCIPtTATIXG THE COTTON STATES INTO 

revolution." In order that the Senate and the 
country may see that I do Mr. Yancey full justice, 
I shall have the whole letter read. 
Mr. PUGH read, as follows: 

Montgomery, June 15, 1858. 

Dear 9ir : Your kind letter of the 15th is received. 

I hardly agree with you that a general movement can he 
made that will clear out the Augean stable If the Democracy 
were overthrown, it would result in giving place to a gieater 
and hungrier swarm oi' flies. 

The remedy of the South is not in such a process. It is in a 
diligent organization of her true men for the prompt re 
to the next aggression. It mast come in the nature of things. 
No national paity can save us ; no sectional party can ever do 
it. But if we could do as our fathers did — organise " commit 
tees of safety " all over the cotton Plates (and it is only in therh 
that we can hope for any effective movement) — we shall tire 
the southern heart, instruct the southern mind, giv,? tjonrage to 
each oVher, and, at the proper moment, hy one organized, con 
certed action, we can precipitate the cotton States into a revo- 
lution. 

i'lie idea has been shadowed forth in the South by Mr. Rof- 
fin-; has been taken up and recommended by the Advertiser, 
ahder the name of "League of United Southerners. " who, 
keeping up their old party relations on all other questions, will 
bold the southern issue paramount, ami will influence parties. 



in seceding; there his doctrines were repudiated. 
Boldly and fearlessly he put his protest on record 
against the doctrine of non intervention, and 
withheld his assent to the support of the nomi- ., 

nee, because he conscientiously believed that the !l Mr - 5 ancey s opinions, finding it in the Intelh- 
South ought to insist on the doctrii newspaper so proverb^l lot- its accu- 

tion by Congress- in support of slavery in I < J "''l iL " &}™esa, t.4°ubt not that the extract 

Territories when the people did not want ful1 justice to the writer In .the forepart 

Overruled by five or ten to one in Baltimore in of the letter Mr. Yancey proceeds to say that, "to 
1848, overruled unanimously at Baltimore- in be candid, I place tffit littie trust in. such States 
1852, in 1856 he concluded that perhaps he would as , L ?" 1:i ' VHre ;, M T * r y land . ietmessee, Kentucky, 
make a virtue of necessity, and submit to non- ! a ° J Missouri. lie has but little. confidence in 
intervention; and he go1 favoi tU '"" He then proceeds tq gi ve his reasons why 

of non-interv.ntion. and succeeded in l ' u " a '} ,liem - Delaware he regards as 

in the platform, before the nomination of the ""-'"tally a slave fetal-, but substantially antfr 

Blavery. On that he diners in opinion from the 
distinguished Senator from Delaware, (Mr. Bay- 
akl>,) who thinks that Delaware has such an in- 
terest i:i slavery that it is worth while to break 
up the Democratic party on account of slavery. 
(Laughter.) But Mr. Yancey has not much faith 
in Delaware and Maryland. He cannot trust 
Maryland because, he says, she keeps Abolition- 
ists ii. Congress. Then, he says, he cannot trust 
Missouri, because she, for a long time, sustained 
a Free-Soiler in the Senate, and afterwards in the 
House of Representatives — alluding to Colonel 
Benton. Then, he says, he cannot trust Tennes- 
see, because she kept an Abolitionist here in the 
Senate so long, and reelected him ; and besides, he 
says Tennessee never had his confidence since; a 
Methodist conference refused to expunge certain 
anti-slavery opinions which John Wesley had 
inserted into the ritual. He cannot trust Ken- 
tucky, because Kentucky, for so many years, 
sustained such Free-Soilers as Clay and CaiTTEy- 
den! (Laughter.) He then says: 

" I did not name Virginia. It is tro^ I did not discriminate 
between Virginia and the other border States. My purpose did 
not call for it." 

After giving his reasons why he could not trust 
the border slaveholding States which I have 
named, and why he proposed to plunge the cot- 
ton States into revolution, separating them from 
the border slave States, he proceeds as follows: 

Mr. PUGH read the following: 

" It is equally true that I do not ( xpect Virginia to lake any 
initiative sieps towards a dissolution of the Union, when that 
exigency shall be forced upon the South. Her position as a 
border Sta'e, and a well considered southern policy, (a policy 
which has been digested and understood, and approve 1 by the 
ablest men in Virginia, as you yourself mnst be aware,) would 
seem to demand that, when such movement takes place by any 



26 



con-id- rahle nnmher cf southern Stutes, Vi sin'a and the or her 
border States should remain in the Union, where, bv their posi 

tion and tatir i n.els, thev con 1(1 prove more effective friends, 

thai In moving out of the Union, and tim> giving to the sonth 
em confederacy a long abolition hostile border io watch. In 
the event ol the movement being anccefsfol, in time. Virginia, 
and the other liorder States that desired it. could join Hie -on'li 
ern confederacy, and be protected by the power of ita arms and 
its rii ilomacy. 

•• \ oii> charge thai I designed to, and did. impeach the fideli 
ty 01 Virginia,, in on roe however ipQch of troth there may be in 
it with reference to those border States that I have named." 

Mr. DOUGLAS. So it seems (hat, in 1858, a 
well-digested plait had been matured and ap- 
proved i»y many of the ablest men of the South, 
and even in Virginia; and that by that plan it 
was not expected that Virginia, and these other 
unsound border States, were to go out of the 
Union when the Sooth was forced to dissolve — 
using the word "forced." One would suppose 
t'n,". if there was any such injustice to tlie slave- 
holding Mates as to force the South out, in de- 
fence of Iter constitutional rights, Virginia would 
be expected to he as tenacious of them as any 
other .Mate; but he did not expect that Vir- 
ginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, 
and Delaware, were expected, by that, plan, to 
remain in the Union, for the reason that, by so re 
mainiug, they could render more service to those 
who went (nit than they could it they went out 
■with them. A very enviable position Mr. Yancey 
puis tlte old Dominion in! He wishes to retire 
front you, and asks you to remain with us, in or- 
d r that you may annoy and distract and betraj 
us. for the benefit of those that go out ; and be 
holds out i In- assurance that, in the course of 
time, perhaps, Virginia and Maryland, and Ken- 
tucky and Tennessee, and Missouri, may become 
sound enough to be admitted into the southern 
confederacy, lie is going to keep you on proba 
tion 1 awhile, guarding a long abolition frontier, 
for the hen. tit of the cotton States; and after 
awhile, perhaps, if you do good service, and so 
acta- to be entitled to his respect and confidence, 
then he will admit you into this southern con- 
federacy of the cotton States! 

Mr. Yancy tells us of the "well-digested 
plan." It was not to be executed at once; ai.d 
in the mean time all the men in the plan must 
preserve their relations in the Democratic party, 
so as to influence public men and public measures, 
and ihns he ready to have more influence in pre- 
cipitating.this result on the party, and breaking 
it up. Part of the plan was to pretend still to 
be members, keep in the party, go into fellowship 
with us, seem anxious to preserve the organiza- 
tion and at the proper time plunge the cotton 
States into revolution. What was the proper 
time, to which he alluded? Wa3 it at the 
Charleston convention? Was that to be the au- 
pieious moment J The history of the event 
shows that Mr. Yancey there acted up to his 
programme announced in his letters to Slaughter 
and Prtor. ile preserved his relations with his 

{>arty with a view of exercising influence on pub- 
ic men and measures, over northern as well as 
southern men, and finally proposed an interven- 
tion platform, reversing the - ereed of ths party, 
and " at the propi r lime" he did precipitate the 
cotton SlaUjs into revolution, an^ led them out 



of the convention. The programme was carried 
out to the letter; and he did leave in the conven- 
tion those unsound States that he could not trust, 
such as Virginia and Tennessee and Kentucky 
and Missouri and North Carolina and Delaware 
and Maryland. Part of Delawaie, I believe, fol- 
lowed him; but they came to the conclusion that 
Delaware was not big enough to divide. (Laugh- 
ter.) Her champion returned back into the north- 
ern confederacy. Was it to keep watch, and 
guard an abolition frontier for the benefit of 
the cotton States ? Is Delaware to be received 
into Mr. Yancey's southern confederacy after a 
while? Will he consent to allow Virginia to 
come? Will North Carolina be accepted By him? 
Will Tennessee be permitted to come in, now 
that she has got rid of her Free-Soil Senator? 
Will he allow Kentucky to join, when such Abo- 
litionists as Clay and Crittenden have ceased to 
represent her? 1 beg the pardon of the Senator 
from Kentucky for repeating his name in this 
connection. The gallant Senator from Kentucky 
an Abolitionist I A Free Soilerl A man whose 
fame is as wide as civilization, whose patriotism, 
whose loyalty to the Constitution was never 
questioned by men of any party! (Applause iu 
the galleries.) Oh, with what devotion could I 
thank God if every man in America was just 
such an Abolitionist as TJenry Clay and John J. 
Crittenden 1 (Renewed applause.) 

The PRhSiDIXG OFFICER, (Mr. Foot.)— 
Order I 

Mr. DOUGLAS. I wish to Cod that, the whole 
American people were just such Abolitionists as 
Clav and Crittenden. ( A pplausc in the galleries.) 
The PRESIDING OFFICER, The^Chair is 
obliged to say that a repetition of the offence 
from the galleries must be followed by an order 
for the clearance of the galleries forthwith. The 
Chair gives this notice to all persons occupying 
seats in the galleries on the assumed authority 
and direction of the Senate itself. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. I do not say that Mr. Yancey 
and his associates at Charleston mean disunion. 
I have no authority for saying any more than 
appears in the publication of his matured plan. 
Sir, it was said with truth that the order of bat- 
tle issued at Cerro Gordo by General Scott a day 
before the battle, was a complete history of the 
triumph after the battle was over, so perfect 
were his arrangements, so exact was the compli- 
ance with his orders. The programme of Mr. 
Yancey, published two years ago, is a truthful 
history of the secession movement at Charleston. 
1 have not the slightest idea that all those whe 
came under bis influence in maturing bis meas- 
ures, concurred in the ends to which these meas- 
ures inevitably led; but what were Mr. Yan- 
(.■ey's measures? He proposed to insist upon a 
platform identical in every feature with the cau- 
cus resolutions which we are now asked to adopt. 
The Yancey platform at Charleston, known as 
the majority report from the committee on reso- 
lutions, in substance and spirit and legal effect, 
was the same as the Senate caucus resolutions; 
the same as the resolutions now under discus- 
sion, and upon which the Senate io called upon, 
to vote. 



27 



I do not suppose that any gentleman advocat- 
ing this platform in the Senate, means or desires 
disunion. I acquit each and every man of such 
a purpose; but I believe, in my conscience, that 
such a platform of principles, insisted upon, will 
lead directly and inevitably to a dissolution of 
the Union. This platform demands congressional 
intervention for slavery in the Territories in cer- 
tain event?. What are these events? In the 
event that the people of a Territory do not want 
slavery, and will not provide by law for ii^ in- 
troduction and protection, and that fart shall be 
ascertained judicially, then Congress is to pledge 
itself to pass laws to "for.ee the Territories to have 
it. Is this the non intervention to which the 
Democratic party pledged itself at Baltimore and 
Cincinnati ? So long as the people of a Tei ritory 
want slavery, and s*ay so in their legislation, the I 
advocates of the caucus platform are willing to ' 
let them have it, and to act. upon the principle 
that Congress shall not interfere. They are foi; 
non-interference so long as the people want sla- 
very, so long as they will provide by law for its 
introduction and protection; but th 
the people say they do not want it, and w ill not 
have it, then Congress must intervene and 
the institution on an unwilling people. On the 
other hand, the Republican party is also for u 
intervention in certain contingencies. '. .'■ 
publicans are for non-intervention just so loi 
the people of the Territories do not want sla\ ry, 
and say so by their laws. So long a* the p< 
of a Territory prohibit slavery, the Abolitionists 
are for non-intervention, and will not interfere 
at all; but whenever the people of the Territo- 
ries say by their legislation that they do want 
it, and provide by law lor its introduction and 
protection, then the Republicans are for inter- 
vening and for depriving them of it. Each of 
you is for intervention for your own section, and 
against it when non-intervention operates for 
your section. There is no difference in principle 
between intervention North and intervention 
South," Each asserts the power and duty of the 
Federal Government to force institutions upon 
an unwilling people. Each denies the right of 
self government to the people of the Territory 
over their internal and domestic concerns. Each 
appeals to the passions, prejudices, and ambition 
of his own section, against the peace and harmony 
of the whole country. 

Sir, let this doctrine of intervention North and 
intervention South become the rallying point of 
two great parties, and you will find that you 
have two sectional parties, divided by that line 
that separates the free from the slaveholding 
States. Whenever this shall become the doctrine 
of the two parties, you will rind a southern inter- 
vention party for slavery, and a northern inter- 
vention party against slavery; and then will 
come the "irrepressible conflict" of which we 
have heard so much. We have had an illustra- 
tion of what kind of intervention you will get 
whenever you recognize the right, of Congress to 
intervene on this subject. The House of Repre- 
sentatives sent us a bill, the other day, repealing 
the slave, code which was unanimously adopted 
by the Legislature of New Mexico, and fastening 



the Wilmot proviso upon that Territory against 
the will of that people. That bill is now pend- 
ing on your table, and awaiting the action of 
this body, side by side with a resolution of one 
of the Senators from Mississippi (Mr. Brown) 
to repeal the prohibition of slavery in Kansas 
Territory, with a view to force them to have 
the institution, whether they want it or not. I 
tell you that the doctrine of the Democratic 
party, as proclaimed in 1848 and in 1852 at Bal- 
timore, in 1E5G ut Cincinnati, and in 1S60 at 
Charleston, is that we must resist, with all our 
energies, both these propositions for interven- 
tion.^ So long as the people of Kansas do not. 
want slavery, you shall never force- it on them 
by any act of Congress, if I can prevent it. So 
long as the people of New Mexico do want sla- 
very, you on the other side of the Chamber shall 
never deprive them of it, if i can prevent it 
You, gentlemen in the Northeast or in the North- 
west, do not know what kind of laws and insti- 
tutions the people of Xew . ire as well 
ey do themselves. Your people in the Gulf 
. or in those cotton States that are to be 
2 >d into revolution, do not know what kind 
oi' la «vs and institutions are adapted to the wants 
and interests and happiness of the people of Ne- 
braska, so well as the ■ > that Territory 
do. Our doctrine — the doctrine of the Demo- 
cratic party as proclaimed at Charleston — is non- 
interference by the Federal Government with 
the local concerns and domestic affairs of the 
people, either in the States or in the Territories.' 

But, we are told that the necessary result of 
this doctrine of non-intervention, which gentle- 
men, by way of throwing ridicule upon, call 
squatter sovereignty, is to deprive the South of 
all participation in' what they call the common 
Territories of the United States. That was the 
ground on which the Senator from Mississippi 
(Mr. Davis) predicated his opposition to the 
compromise measures of 1850. He regarded a 
I to repeal the Mexican law as equivalent 
to the Wilmot proviso; a refusal to recognize by 
an act of Congress the right to carry a slave 
there as equivalent to tlio Wilmot proviso; a 
refusal to deny to the Territorial Legislature the 
right to exclude slavery as equivalent to an ex- 
clusion. He believed at that time that this doc- 
trine did amount to a denial of southern rights; 
and he told the people of Mississippi so; but 
they doubted it. Now, let us see how far his 
predictions and suppositions have been verified. 
t infer that he told the people of Mississippi so, 
for as he makes it a charge in his bill of indict- 
ment against me, that I am hostile to southern 
rights, because I gave those votes. 

Now, what has been the result? My views 
were incorporated into the compromise measures 
of 18S0, and his were rejected. Has the South 
been excluded from all the territory acquired 
from Mexico? What says the bill from the House 
of Representatives now on your table, repealing 
the slave code in New Mexico established by the 
people themselves? It is part of the history of 
the country that under this doctrine of non in- 
tervention* this doctrine that you delight to call 
squatter sovereignty, the people ct New Mexico 



28 



have introduced and protected slavery in the 
-whole of that Territory. Under this 'doctrine, 
they have converted a tract of free territory into 
slave territory, more than five times the size of 
the State of New York. Under this doctrine, 
slavery bas been extended from the Rio Grande 
to the Gulf of California, and from the line of 
the Kepublic of Mexico, not only up to 36° 30', 
but up to 38° — giving you a degree and a half 
more slavery territory than you ever claimed. 
In 1848 and 184l> and 1850 you only asked to 
have the line of 3(1° 30'. The Nashville conven- 
tion fixed that as its ultimatum. I offered it in 
the Senate in August, IS 18. and it was adopted 
here but rejected in the House of Representa- 
tives. You asked only up to 86° 30', and non- 
intervention has given you slave territory unto 
38°, a degree and a half more than you asked ; 
and yet you gay that that is a sacrifice of south 
era rights! 

These are ill" fruits of this principle, which the 
Senator from Mississippi regards as hostile to the 
rights of the South, where did you ever g< t 
any other fruits that were more palatable to your 
taste, or more refreshing to your strength? "What 
other inch of free territory has been converted 
into slave territory on the American continent, 
<■>. ■ • the Revolution, except in New Mexici 
Arizona, under the principle of non interv. i 
affirmed at Charleston? If it be true that this 
principle of non-intervention has conferred dpon 
yon all that immense Territory; has protected 
slavery in that comparatively northern and cold 
region where you did not expect it to go, cannot 
you trust the same principle further South when 
you come to acquire additional territory from 
Mexico? If it he true that this principle of non- 
intervention has given to slavery all New Mex- 
ico which was surrounded on nearly every side 
by tree Territory, will not the same principle 
protect you in the northern States of Mexico 
when they are acquired, since they are now sur- 
rounded by slave territory; are several hun- 
dred miles further South ; have many degrees of 
greater heat; and have a climate and soil adapted 
to southern products? Are yon not satisfied with 
these practical results? Do you desire to appeal 
from the people of the Territories to the Congress 
of the United States to settle this question in the 
Territories? When yon distrust the people and 
appeal to Congress, -with both Houses largely 
against you on this question, what sort of pro- 
tection will you get? Whenever you ask a slave 
code from Congress to protect your institutions 
in a Territory where the people do not. want it, 
you will get that sort of protection which the 
wolf gives to the lamb; you will get that sort 
of friendly hug that the grizzly bear gives to the 
infant. Appealing to an anti-slavery Congress 
to pass laws of protection, with a view of forc- 
ing slavery on an unwilling and hostile people! 
Sir, of ail the mad schemes that ever could be 
devised by the South or by the enemies of the 
the South, that which recognizes the right of 
Congress to touch the institution of slavery either 
in States or Territories, beyond the single case 
s - tvided in trie Constitution for the rendition of 
fugitive slaves, is the most fataL 



Mr. President, this morning, before I started 
for the Senate Chamber, I received a newspaper 
containing a letter written by one of Georgia's 
gifted sons upon this question of non-interven- 
tion. I allude to one of the brightest intellects 
that this nation has ever produced; one of the 
most useful public men ; one whose retirement 
from among us created universal regret through- 
out the whole country. You will recognize at 
once that I mean Alexander H. Stephens, of 
Georgia. Since the adjournment of the Charles- 
tor, convention, Mr. Stephens has responded to a 
letter from his friends, giving his counsel — the 
counsel of n patriot — to the party and the coun- 
try in this emergency. In the letter he reviews 
the doctrine of non-intervention, and shows that 
Jie was originally opposed to it, but submitted to 
it because the South demanded it; that it had a 
southern origin ; is a southern doctrine; was dic- 
tated to the North by the South ; and he accepted 
it because the South required it. lie shows that 
the same doctrine was incorporated in the Kan- 
febraska bill, that it formed a compact of 
honor between northern and southern men by 
which we were all bound to stand. He gives a 
history of the Kansas-Nebraska bill identical with 
the one I gave t you yesterday, without know- 
ing that he had written such a letter. Mr. Ste- 
phens has a right to speak as to the meaning of 
the Kansas Nebraska bill. No man in the House 
of Representatives exerted more power and in- 
fluence in securing its passage than Alexander EL 
Stephens. I ask that the whole of his letter, long 
as it is, be rend, for it covers the entire ground, 
and upeaks in the voice of patriotism, counseling 
the only course that can preserve the Democratic 
party and perpetuate the union of these States. 

Mr. PUGH read, as follows: 

Crawfordvillk, Georgia, May 9, 1860. 

Gentlemen : Your letter of the 5th instant was received 
last night, and I promptly respond to jour call as clearly 
and fully as a heavy press of business engagements win 
permit. I Bhaff endeavor to be no less pointed and ex- 
plicit than candid. You do not, in my judgment, over- 
estimate the importance of the questions now pressing 
upon the public mind, growing out of the disruption or 
the Charleston convention. While I was not greatly sur- 
prised at that result, considerinc the elements of its com- 
position, and the general distemper of the times— still, I 
deeply regret it, and with >;ou, look with intense interest 
to the consequences. What is done, cannot be undone or 
amended ; that must remain irrevocable. It would, there- 
fore, be as useless, as ungracious, to indulge in any reflec- 
tions as to whose fault the rupture was owing to. Terhaps, 
and most probably, undue excitement and heat of passion, 
in pursuit of particular ends, connected with the elevation 
or overthrow of particular rivals lor preferment, more 
than any strong desire, guided by cool judgment, so ne- 
cessary on such occasions to advance the public good, was 
the real cause of the rupture. Be that as it may, however, 
what is now to be done, and what is the proper course to 
be taken y To my mind, the course seems to be clear. 

A State convention should be called at an early day— and 
that convention should consider the whole subject calmly 
and dispassionately, with " the sober second thought," and 
determine whether to send a representation to Richmond 
or to Baltimore. The correct determination of this ques- 
tion, as I view it, will depend upon another; and that is, 
whether the doctrine of non-intervention by Congress with 
slavery in the Territories ought to be adhered to or aban- 
doned by the South. This is a very grave and serious 
question, and ought not to be decided rashly or intemper- 
ately. No such small matters as the promotion of this or 
that individual, however worthy or unworthy, ought to 
enter into its consideration. It is a great subject of pub- 
lic policy, affecting the vast interests of the present and 



29 



the future. It may be unnecessary, and entirely useless, 
for me to obtrude my views upon this question in advance 
of the meeting of such convention, upon whom its decis- 
ion may primarily devolve. I cannot, however, comply 
with your request without doing so to a limited extent, at 
least. This 1 shall do. In the first place, then, 1 assume, 
as an unquestioned and unquestionable fact, that non-in- 
tervention, as stated, has been for many years received, 
recognized, and acted upon, as the settled doctrine of the 
South. By n<m-intervention, I mean the principle that 
Congress shall pass no law upon the subject of slavery in 
the Territories, etttai r for or against it, in any way— that 
they shall not interfere or act upon it at all— or, in the ex- 
press words of Mr. Calhoun, the great southern leader, 
that Congress shall "leu ve the whole subject where the 
Constitution and the great principles of self-government 
place it." This has been eminently a southern doctrine. 
It was announced by Mr. Calhoun in his speech in the 
Senate on the 27th of June, 1S48; and, after two years ol 
discussion, it was adopted as the basis of the adjustment 
finally made in 1S50. It was the demand of the South, put 
forth by the South, and, since its establishment, has been 
again ami again affirmed and reaffirmed as the settled 
policy of the South, by party conventions and State Legis- 
latures, in every form that a people can give authoritative 
expression to their will and wishes. This cannot now be 
a matter of dispute. It is history, as indelibly fixed upon 
the record as the fact that the colony of Georgia was set- 
tled under the auspices of Oglethorpe, or that the war of 
the American Revolution was fought in resistance to the 
unjust claim of power on the part of the British Parlia- 
ment. 

I refer to this matter of history connected with the sub- 
ject under consideration, barely as a starting point — to 
show how we stand in relation to it. It is not a new ques- 
tion. It has been up before, and whether rightly or wrong- 
ly, it has been decided — decided and settled just as the 
South asked that it should be — not, however, without 
great effort and a prolonged struggle. The question now 
is: shall the South abandon her own position in that de- 
cision and settlement? This is the question virtually pr'i - 
sented by the action of the seeeders from the Charleston 
convention, and the grounds upon which they based their 
action; or. stated in other words, it amounts to this: 
■whether the southern States, after all that has taken place 
on the subject, should now reverse their previous course, 
and demand congressional intervention for the protection 
of slavery in the Territories, as a condition of their re- 
maining longer in the Union? For I take it for granted 
that it would be considered by all as the most mischievous 
folly to make the demand, unless we intend to push the 
issue to its Ultimate and legitimate results. Shall the 
South, then, make this demand of Congress, and when 
made, in case of failure to obtain it, shall she secede from 
the Union, as a p rliou of her delegates (some under in- 
structions, and some trom their own free will) seceded 
from the convention, on their failure to get it granted 
there ? 

Thus stands the naked question, as I understand it, pre- 
sented by the action of the seeeders, in its full dimensions 
— its length, breadth, and depth, in all its magnitude. 

It is present:-. 1. not to the Democratic party alone; it is 
true a convention of that party may first act on it, but it is 
presented to the country, to thAvhole people of the South, 
of all parties. And men of all parties should duly and 
timely consider it, for they may all have to take sides on 
it, sooner or later. 

It rises in importance high above any party organiza- 
tion of the present day, a' d it may, and ought to, if need 
be, sweep them all from the board. My judgment is 
against the demand. If it were a new question, presented 
in its present litrht for the first time, my views upon i' 
might be different from what they are. It is known to 
you and the country that the policy of non-intervention, 
as established at the instance of the South, was no favor- 
ite one ol mine. As to my position upon it, and the doc- 
trine now revived, when tin*y were original and open 
questions, as well as my present views, I will cite you to 
an extract of a speech made by me in Augusta, in July 
last, on taking final leave of my constituents. I could not 
rt state tli-em more clearly or more briefly. In speaking of, 
and reviewing this matter, 1 then said : 

" And, as you all know, tt(non- / interventio?i)ca.me, short 
of what I wished. It was, in my view, not the full meas- 
ure of our rights — that required, in my judgment, the 
enactment by Congress of all needful laws for the protec- 
tion of sla\e pi", e,,y .n the Territories, so long as the ter- 
ritorial condition lasted. 

"But fijj overwhelming majority of the South was 



against that position. It was said that we who maintained 
it, yieided the whole question by yielding the jurisdiction 
— and that, if we conceded the power to protect, we neces- 
sarily conceded with it the power to prohibit. This by no 
means followed, in my judgment. But such was the pre- 
vailing opinion. And it was not until it was well ascer- 
tained that a large majority of the South would not ask 
for, or even vote for, congressional protection, that those of 
us who were for it yielded to non-intervention, because, 
though it came short of our wishes, ye', it contained no 
sacrifice of principle, had nothing aggressive in it, and se- 
cured, for all practical purposes, what was wanted, that 
is, the unrestricted right of ex ansion over the common 
public domain, as inclination, convenience, or necessity 
may require on the part of our people." * * * 

"Thus the settlement was made; thus the record 
stands, and by it I am still willing to stand, as it was ful- 
ly up to the demands of the South, through her representa- 
tives at the time, though not up to my own; and, as by 
it, the right of expansion to the extent of population and 
capacity is amply secured." 

In this you clearly perceive what I think of the proper 
course now to be taken on the same Bubjeet. While in the 
beginning of this controversy I was not favorable to the 
policy adopted, vet 1 fin:iliy yielded my assent. It was 
yielded to the South— to the prevailing sentiment of my 
own section. But it never would bave been yielded if I 
had seen that any of our important rights, or any principle 
essential to our safety or security, could, by possibility, 
result from its operation. Nor would 1 now be willing to 
abide by it, if I saw in its practical workings any serious 
injury to the South likely to arise from it. All parties in 
the South, after the settlement was made, gave it the sanc- 
tion of their acquiesence, if not cordial approval. What, 
then, has occurred since to cause us to change our posi- 
tion in relation to it? Is it that those of the North who 
stood by us in the struggle from IMS to 1850,.did after- 
wards stand nobly by us in 1854, in taking off the old con- 
gressional restriction of 1820* so as to have complete non- 
intervention throughout the length and breadth of the 
common public domain ? Was this heroism on their part, 
in adhering to principle, at the hazard and peril of their 
political live sand fortunes, the cause of present complaint? 
This cannot be; for never was an act of Congress so gen- 
erally and so unanimously hailed with delight at the South 
as this one was— I mean the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1864? 
It was not only indorsed by all partus in G-eorgia, bnt 
every one who did not agree to its just provisions, upon 
the subject of slavery, was declared to be unfit to hold 
party associations with any party not hostile to the inter- 
ests of the South. What, then, is the cause of complaint 
now? Wherein has this policy worked any injury to the 
South, or wherein is it likely lo work any? 

The only cause of complaint I have heard is, that non- 
intervention, as established in 1850, and carried out in 
1S54, is not understood at the North as it is at the South ; 
that, while we hold that, in leaving "the whole subject 
where the Constitution and the great principles of self- 
government place it," the common Territories are to re- 
main open for settlement by southern people, with their 
slaves, until otherwise provided by a State constitution. 
The friends and supporters of the same doctrine at the 
North maintain that, under it. the people of an organized 
Territory can protect or exclude slave uroperty before the 
formation of a State constitution. Th" opinion or con- 
struction of theirs is what is commonly dubbed "squatter 
sovereignty " Upon this point of difference in construc- 
tion of what are '^the great principles of self-government^" 
under the Constitution of the United States, a great deal 
has been said and written. We have heard it in the social 
circle, in the forum, on the hustings, and in the halls of 
legislation. The newspapers have literally groaned with 
dissertations on it. Pamphlets have been published for 
and agajnat the respective sides. Congress has spent 
months in its discussion, and may spend as many years as 
they have months, without arriving at any more definite 
or satisfactory conclusion in relation to it than Milton's 
perplexed spirits did upon the abstruse questions on which 
they held such high and prolonged debate when they rea- 
soned — 

"Of Providence, foreknowledge, will, and fate — 
Fixed fate, free will, foreknowledgt absolute — 
And found no end, in wandering mazes lost." 
It is not my purpose now to enter the list of these dis- 
putants. My own opinions upon the subject are known; 
and it is equally known that ibis difference of opini< a. or 
construction, is" no new thing in the history of this subject 
Those who hold the doctrine that the people of the Terri- 



30 



tories, according to the gnat principles of self-govern- 
ment, under the Constitution of the United Stab 
exclude slavery by territorial law, and regulate .-lave pro- 
perty as all other property, held the same views thej now 
do, when we agreed with them to stand on those terms. 
This fact is also historical. The Smith held that, under 
the Constitution, ihe Territorial Legislatures could not 
exclude slavery— -that this required an act of sovereignty 
to do. Some gentlemen of the North held, as they now 
do, that the Territorial Legislatures could control slave 
properly as absolutely a- tl,-y could any o frier kind of pro- 
perty, ami by a system of laws could' virtually exclude 
slavery Iroiu amongst them, or prevent its introduction, if 
they chose. 

That point of difference it was agreed, by both sides, to 
leave to Ihe courts to settle. There was'HO Chi al. or swin- 
dle, or fraud, or don-blt-deallng in it. ll was a lair, hon- 
orable, and constitutional adjustment of the difference. 
No assertion or declaration by Congress, one way or the 
other, could bave.-affected ihequestion in the least degree; 
for, if the people, according to "the great principles of 
self-government" under the Constitution, have the right 
contended for by those who espouse (bat side of the argu- 
ment, then Congress could not and cannot deprive them 
ol it. Ami, if Colign 89 did not have, or does not have, the 

power to exclude slavery from a Territory, as thos n our 

side contended, and still contend Ihej hat e Dot, then they 
could not and did not confer it upon the Territorial Legis- 
latures. We ol the Soul i held Ul 

power to exclude, ami could not delegate a power lh< y did 
not possess— also, that the people hail not ibe power to 
exclude under the Constitution, and therefore the mutual 
agreement was to take the subject out of Congress, and 
leave ihe question of the power of the people where the 
Constitution had placed it— with the courts. This is the 
whole of it. The question In dispute la a judicial one, and 
no act of Congress, nor any resolution of anv party con- 
vention can in any way affeOt it, uuh'ss we first al 
the position t>f non-intervention by Col ji 

But it seems exceedingly strange to me. that Ihe people 
of the South should, at this late day. begin to find fault 
with this northern construction, a- it i- termed— especially 
since ihe decision of the Supreme Court in the case ol 
Dred Scott. In Ibis connection 1 may be permitted 
that I have read with deep inti n -i ibe debates of the 
Charleston eon \ en i ion, and particularly the able, logh al. 
and eloquent speech of Hon. William L. Yancej . ol .'.:■; 
bama. It was, decidedly, the strongest argument I have 
seen on his Bide of the question. But its greatest power 
was shown in its complete answer to Itself. Never did a 
man with greater clearness demonstrate thai "squatter 
sovereignty." the bugbear of ihe day. i- not in the !■ 
bill, all that has been .-.aid to the contrary notw ilh-t nding. 
This he put beyond the power of refutation. But he stop- 
ped not there ; he went on, and by reference to the decision 
of the Supreme Court allude. I to, he showed conclusively, 
in a most pointed and thrilling climax-, that this most 
frightful doctrine could not, bv possibility, be in it, or in 
any other territorial bill— that it is a constitutional impossi- 
bility. Willi the same master-band he showed that the 
doctrine of -'squatter sovereignty " is not in tin- Cincinnati 
platform; then, why should we of the South now com- 
plain of non-ifiiejiiention, or ask a change of platform? 

What else have we to do but to insist upon our allies to 
stand to their agreement v Would it not have been much 
more natural to look for flinching on their Bide than on 
ours? Why should we desire or want any other platform 
of principles than that adopted at Cincinnati? If those 
who stood with us on it. in the contest of 1856, are willing 
still to stand on it. why should we not be equally willing? 
For my lib- 1 cannot see. unless we are determined to 
have a quarrel with the North anyhow on general account 
If so. in behalf of common sense, let us put it upon more 
tenable grounds! These are abundant, For our own 
character's sake, let us tgake it upon the aggres-ive acts 
of our enemies, rather than any supposed shortcomings of 
our friends, who have stood by us so steadfastly in so 
many constitutional struggles. In the name of patriotism 
and honor, let us not make it upon a point which may so 
directly subject us to the charge of breach of plighted faith. 
"Whatever may befall us, let us ever be found, by friend 
or foe, as good as our word. These are my views, frankly 
and earnest!; niven. 

The great question then is, shall we stand by our prin- 
ciples, or shall we. cutting loose front our moorings, where 
we have been safely anchored so many years, launch out 
again into unknown seas, upon new ami perilous adven- 
tures, under the guide and pilo age of those who prove 
themselves to have no more, fixedness of purpose, or sta- 



bility as to objects or policy, than the shifting winds by 
which we shall be driven? Let this question be decided 
by the Convention, and decided with that Wisdom, cool- 
ings, and forecast which become Statesmen and patriots. 
As for myself, I can say, whatever may be the course of 
future events, m) judgment in this criss is, tint we should 
stand by our principles •• through woe " as well as " through 
weal," and maintain Ihem ill good faith, now ami always, 

be, until they, we, an 1 the Republic perish tog 
in a common ruin. I see no injur} that can possibly ari-o 
to us from tbem-r.net even if the constitutional impossi- 
bility of their containing • squatter sovereignty" did not 
exist, as has been concTusivel) demonstrated For, if it 
did exist in them, and were all that it most ardent advo- 
cates claim tor it, no s, r io;is practical danger to us could 
result from it. 

Even according to their doctrine, we have the unre- 
Btricted right of expansion to the extent of population. 
They hold i li: t slaver] can and will go, under its op 
lion, wherever the people want ii. Squatters cani d it to 
T< m.t Bsee, K< nlucky, Missouri, Alabama, Mississippi, and 
Arkansas, without any law to protect it. and to Texas 
against a la^ prohibiting it, and thej will carry it to all 
countries w here climate, soil, i roduoiion, and population 

will allow. The-, are the natural lav.n thai will regulate 

it under non-interi cording to tle-ir conslimo- 

tion; and no act of Congress can carry it into an} Terri- 
tory against these laws. an\ more than it could make tho 
run to Hi,- mountains, instead of the sea. If wo 
h ive not enough of the right sort of population to oom|)< to 
rth in lie colonization of ne:w Terri- 
tories and Stales, this deficiency en never be supplied by 
any such act of Congress as that now asked for. The at- 
tain as that oi Xerxes to control the 
wat< r- oi tiu- Hellespont b} w hipping them in his rage. 

The tii i intimate, do iudeed portend evil. lint 

I have no fears lor the institution of slavery, either in the 
Union or out of it, if our people are but true to them- 
. and loyal to fixed principles and set- 
tied policy ; and if lie v are iiol thus true. 1 have lilllo 

hope of anything good, whether the present Union lasts 
oranev ted. There is, in my judgment, noth- 

ing to t le confliot," of which wo 

i much. Slavery r< eat truths, which eon 

never)' on or argument. It 

has grown Slrongi r in the Uliods ol men the more it has 
been discussi d, and it will still grow stronger as the dis- 
nd lime ro|;> on. Truth is omnipo- 
tent, ami mu -t prevail. We have only to maintain the 
truth with firmness, and wield it aright Our system nests 
upon an impregnable basis, thai can and will defy all as- 
saults from without My greatest apprehension is from 
within— there lie:! the greatest danger. We- have 
grown luxuriant in tin- exhubi lanees of our well-being 
ami unparalh led pros] 

Theri icj Everywhere, not only at the. North, 

but at thj o strife, dissension, disorder, and an- 

archy. It is against this tendency that the sober-minded 
ami reflecting men even where should now be called upon 
to guard. 

My opinion, then, is. that delegates ought to be sent to 
the adjourned convention at Baltimore. The demand 
made at Charleston bj tin- seceders ought not to be insist- 
ed upon. Harmony beingjpstort d on ibis point, a nomi- 
nation can doubtless be made of some man whom tho 
pari} even win re Can support, with the same zeal and tho 
same ardor with which they entered and waged the eon- 
test in 1856, when the same principles were involved. 
■ If, in this, there be a failure, let the responsibility not 
rest anon US, Let our lends be clear of all blame. Let 
there be no cause for easting censure at our door. If. in 
the end, the great national Democratic party — the strong 
ligament, whieh has SO long bound and held the Union to- 
gether, shaped us policy and controlled its destinies, and 
to which we inn e so often looked w ith a hope t,hnt seldom 
failed, a.s the. only party North on w liich to rely in the most 
trying hours when constitutional rights were in peril, goes 
down— iet it not be said to us, in the midst of the disasters, 
that may ensue, "you did it!"' In any and every event, 
let not the reproach of Tunic faith rest upon our name. 
If everything else has to go down, let our untarnished 
honor, at least, survive the wreck. 

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. Stephens has given a true, 
veritable history of the compromise measures of 
1850 and of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, as under- 
stood by the supporters of the measures when they 



31 



ere passed. He has stated (airly and truly the 
tints of difference between us, which points were 

be left to ' he courts to decide ; and he lias said, 
hat I think he was bound to say as a patriot and 

Democrat, that the Cincinnati platform is all 
tat the (South ought to ask or has a right to ask, or 
tat her interests require in this emergency. On 
lat platform tile party can remain a unit, and 
resent an invincible and irresistible front to the 
epublican or Abolition phalanx at the North, 
o certain as von abandon non-intervention and 
institute, intervention, just so certain you yield a 
ower into their hands that will sweep the Demo- 
catic party from the face of the globe. 

Sir, I believe that the safety, the peace, the 
ighest interests of this country require the pres- 
rvat.ion in tact, of the Democratic party on its old 
reed and its old platform. Whenever you depart 
rom that platform, which was adopted unani- 
lously, you never will get unanimity in the form- 
,tion of another. The only objection I have 
ieard urged against that platform is that it is 
usceptibic of two const ructions, when, in point 
•f fact, there are no two constructions — there can 
>e none on any one of the. political issues con- 
ained in it. The only difference of opinion nris 
ng out of that platform is on the judicial ques- 
tion, about which wo agreed to differ — which we 
lever did decide; because, under the ConstitU- 
ion, no tribunal on earth but the Supreme Court 
sould decide it. We differ only as to what the 
lecision of the court will be; not as to whether 
sve will obey it when made. How can you de- 
termine that, question by a platform? It has 
been suggested that this difficulty was all to be 
reconciled by the adoption of a resolution which 
[ fiud in the papers under the title of the Tennes- 
see platform. Will my friend read it? 
Mr. 1'UGII read, as follows: 

*' Resolved, Thai all citizens of the United Slates have an 
equal right lo settle with iheit property in the Territories, and 
that iiuder the decisions of the Supreme Court, which we re 
cognize as an oxpo<ition of the Constitution, neither their rights 
of person or property can be destroyed or impaired by congres- 
sional or territorial legislation 

Mr. DOUGLAS. We have had predictions 
that the party was to be reunited by the adoption 
of that resolution. The only objection that I 
have to it is that it is liable to two constructions, 
and certainly and inevitably will receive two, 
directly the opposite of each other, and each will 
be maintained with equal pertinacity. The res- 
olution contains, in my opinion, two trueisms, 
and, fairly considered, no man can question them. 
They are: first, that every citizen of the United 
States has an equal right in the Territories; that 
whatever right the citizen of one. State has, may 
be enjoyed by the citizens of all the States; that 
whatever property the citizen of one State may 
carry there, the citizens of all the States may 
carry ; and on whatever terms the citizens of one 
State can hold it and have it protected, the citi- 
zen* of all States can hold it and have it protect- 
ed, without deciding what the right is, which still 
remains for decision. The second proposition is, 
that, a right of person or property secured by the 
Constitution caunot be taken away either by net 
of Congress or of the Territorial Legislature. 
Who ever dreuuied that either Congress or a Ter- 



ritorial Legislature, or any other legislative body 
on earth, could destroy or impair any light guar- 
antied or secured by the Constitution'? No man 
that I know of. This resolution leaves the same 
point open that remains open for the courts under 
the Cincinnati platform, and under the Kansas- 
Nebraska bill. My objection is that it hears upon 
its lace the evidence that it is to be construed in 
two opposite ways in the different sections of the 
Union. I want no double dealing or double con- 
struction. 1 am willing to stand on the Cincin- 
nati platform, as you agreed to it, ami as it was 
reenacted at Charleston. I will .rive it the same 
construction 1 have always given to if ; you may 
give it yours. We differ only on. a law point; 
let the court decide that, and 1 only ask that you 
will bow to the decision of the court with the 
-ante submission that I shall, and carry it out 
with the same good faith. I want no new issue. 
[ want no new test. 1 will make none on you, 
and I will permit you to make none on me. 

We are told that the party must be preserved. 
I agree that the best interests of the country re- • 
quire that it, should be preserved in its integrity. 
How can that, be done, except by abiding by its 
decisions? The party has pronounced its author- 
itative voice on the very points a1 ween 
you and me. The party rejected your caucus 
platform by twenty-seven majority on a fair vote. 
The party affirm* d the Cincinnati platform almost 
unanimously. Hence it becomes the duty of 
every Democrat, every man who expects to re- 
main a Democrat, to acquiesce in the decision of 
the party, and support its nomination when it 
shall be made. In no other way can the pAYty 
be united or preserved. Can you preserve the 
party by allowing a minority to overrule and 
dictate to the majority ? Is the party to be pre- 
served by abandoning the fundamental articles^ 
of its creed, and adopting intervention in lieu c r 
non intervention? Shall the majority surrender 
to the minority? Will that re tore harmony*? 
Will that produce fraternity ? Suppose that the 
majority should stirrer. der to you, the minority — 
should justify the seceders and bolters — will that 
reunite «B? You tell us that if we do this, you will 
grant, no quarter or, the point in dispute. The test 
is to be kept, up by the minority against the major- 
ity ; by bolters against the regular organization; 
by seceders against those whose political fidelity 
would not permit them to bolt; and the regular 
organization is required to surrender at discre- 
tion to the seceders, with notice se : ved, that no 
" quarter" is to be granted. That is the concilia- 
tion that is tendered! That, is the olive branch 
that is extended to us!. You will permit us to 
vote for your candidate, if we will only allow a 
minority to nominate him! You will permit us 
to vote for a candidate on a platform that the mi- 
nority dictates and the majority has rejected! 

Suppose the minority should get their platform 
and candidate, and they should go before the 
country appealing to the Democratic masses to 
rally in their majesty around the Democratic or- 
ganization, and support its nominations — a mi- 
nority candidate forced on the majority, asking 
our votes, with notice, " if you vote for me i will 
grant no quarter, 1 will put you to the sword; 



32 

there is not a man of you that is fit to be chair- ! involved in this discussion involves the fate of 
man of a committee, or a member of a Cabinet, 1 the American Union. Whenever you incorp 
or a collector of a port, a postmaster, a light- ; intervention by Congress into the Demoi 
house-keeper!" These are the terms of concila- |! creed, as it has become the cardinal principle of 
ti on extended by a minority to the regular or- [ | the Republican creed, you will Drake twosection- 



ganization of the party. Grant no quarter! Bi 
talk for seceders, after- they have been overruled" 
What man would desire year nomination on 
such terms? Who would be mean enough to ask 
and expect the support of men that he had mark- 
ed as victims of vengeance so sooti as the knife 
was put in hid hands by them? Who would de- 
grade himself so low as to ask or accept votes on 
term? so disreputable ?- 

On the contrary, sir, we, the Democratic par- 
ty, speaking through its regular organization, 
and by authority of the party, say to you. erring 
men as you are, that we will grant quarter; we 
submit to no test, and make none; we are willing 
to right the baltle now on the same principles 
and the same terms that we have fought it on 
since 1848; on the same p] nd with the 

• same fraternal feeling. If you diffe? from us, we 
recognize your right to differ without impairing 
your political standing, so long as you remain in 
the regular organization* and support the nomi- 
nees. I care not whether you agree or differ 
with me on the points of law thatriiave divided 
us. If you should happen to be right, and I 
wrong, it would not prove that you were a bet- 



iil parties, hostile to each other, divided by the 
line that separates (lie free from the slftvehol 
States, and present a coirfKot that will be irre- 
pressible, and will never cease until the one shall 
subdue the other, or tiny shall agree to divide, 
in order that they may live in peace. God grant 
that there shall never be another sectional party 
in the United Slates. Why cannot we live to- 
gether in peace on the terms that have bound 
and held us together so long! Why cannot we 
agree on this great principle 1 of non-intervention 
by the Federal Government will) the local and 
domestic affairs of the Territories, excluding 
slavery and all other irritating questions, anil 
leaving the people to govern themselves, so far 
as the Constitution of the United States imposes" 
no limitation upon their authority. Upon that 
princi ui be peace. Upon tl 

pie you can have slavery in 
you want it, and abolish it whenever you are 
tired of it. On that principle we can have it or 
not, as our interests, our prosperity, ou* own 
sense of what is due to ourselves, shall 
On that principle, you on the Pacific 
shape your own institutions go that they will be 



ter Democrat than I; but that you were abetter ' adapted to your own people. On thai 
lawyer than I am, so far as that one branch of there can be. peace and harmony and frati 



law is concerned. I should not have much pride 
of opinion on the point of law, but for the fact 
that you have got in the habit of calling me 
"Judge," (laughter;) having among my youthful 
indiscretions, accepted that office and acquired 
the title; and 1 do claim that, with that title, I 
have a right to think as I please on a point of 
law until the court decides that, I am wi 

Mr. President, I owe an apology to the Senate 
for detaining them so long. I present my pro- 
found acknowledgments for the courtesy and 
kindness that have beeu extended to me. 1 
would not have claimed so much of your time 
but for the fact that I believe that the* principle 



between the North and the South, the ' 
the West, the Pacific and the Atlantic Why 
cannot we now reaffirm that principle as v, 
in 1852? Then, the Whig party adopted it as a 
cardinal article in their creed, and so did the Do 
mocracy. Let your Whigs, your Democrats — all 
conservative men who will not be abolitionized 
oi- sectiojialized — rally under the good old ban- 
ner of non-intervention, so that tin- Constitution 
may be maintained inviolate, and the Union last 
forever. Intervention, North or South, mean* 
disunion; non-intervention promises peace, fra- 
ternity, and perpetuity to the Union, and to all 
our cherished institutions. 



Printed by Lkm. Towebs, Washington, D. C, at $2 per hundred copies. 






V 





























































































































































































. 
























































. 





















- 

































